IPGV is a member of
Iowa Shares
|
|
|
1/13/03
|
Hospital Charges for
US
Gun Injuries Cost $802 Million Annually; The Total Cost of Gun Violence
is Higher
As reported by the Associated Press, a new study estimates that gun
injuries result in hospital charges of $802 million a year, not
including physician fees or follow-up care. The study, by Dr.
Jeff Coben, director of Allegheny General Hospital’s Center for
Violence and Injury Control, and Dr. Claudia Steiner of the federal
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, was published in the
January 1st Edition of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
The study also found that gun injuries were
the leading cause for uninsured hospital stays in the country,
with approximately 29% of gun injury patients uninsured.
This increases the financial burden on hospitals, which often must
pay for treatment of uninsured individuals.
Researchers Coben and Steiner used 1997 admissions data from over 1,000
hospitals, finding that there were a total of 35,800 gun-related
hospital admissions nationwide. Of those admitted, 75% recovered
from their injuries, 12% went to new facilities for rehabilitation and
other necessary care, and 7% of
the injuries were fatal. Young men were predominantly affected,
with 86% of patients male and 60% under the age of 30.
Assaults accounted for over half of the admissions and cost an average
of $24,000 for an initial stay. Unintentional shootings resulted
in 30% of the admissions, costing an average of $30,000 for an initial
stay. Only 8% of admissions were due to self-inflicted gun
injuries, due to the fact that suicide attempts by firearm result in
completions 80-90% of the time. The causes of the injuries in the
remaining admissions could not be determined.
Hospital charges are not the end of the financial burden of gun
violence. According to calculations by economists Philip J. Cook
and Jens Ludwig reported in Gun Violence: The Real Costs (2000), when
the various costs of gun violence are added together—including costs
for hospitals, police, lost productivity, security measures, public
policies to reduce the risk of gun violence, and the estimated worth of
gun violence reduction to the American people—a much larger figure
emerges, placing the total cost of US gun violence each year at
approximately $100 billion.
|
1/20/03
|
Families of Snipers'
Victims Sue Gun Manufacturer, Dealer
Shortly before the D.C. area snipers began their shooting spree, the US
House of Representatives was preparing to discuss a bill that would
give the gun industry immunity from lawsuits filed by individuals and
municipalities seeking damages caused by negligent conduct. More
than half of the House members sponsored the bill and it most likely
would have passed. When the shooting began, however, the bill’s
sponsors pulled the bill.
Now, as reported by the Washington Post, the families of two of the
snipers’ victims have joined together to
file a lawsuit against both the gun dealer, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply
of Tacoma Washington; its owners Brian D. Borgelt and Charles N. Carr,
Bushmaster Firearms Inc., the manufacturer of the XM15 assault
rifle used in the shootings; and suspected snipers John Allen Muhammad
and John Lee Malvo. Several more families are expected to join
the suit soon.
In a suit that would be prohibited if the gun industry immunity bills
proposed last session were made law,
the families allege that “gross negligence” on the part of the
companies “caused injuries and death.” The families are seeking
unspecified damages. Twenty-one states currently have gun
industry immunity laws. That number was 22 until the summer of
2002, when the California Legislature repealed that state’s immunity
law.
Iowa currently does not have a gun industry
immunity law. In 2001, then Sen. Steve King introduced
a bill in the Iowa Senate that would have prohibited Iowa cities
from filing civil actions against gun manufacturers. The
bill died in the State Government Committee chaired by King. Sen.
King has since become Congressman King and is serving currently
in the US Congress.
Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence strongly opposes gun industry
immunity laws. These laws are dangerous in that they make it
virtually impossible to hold an industry already exempt from federal
health and safety standards accountable for
the destruction resulting from their negligent conduct.
Vickie Snyder, whose brother was killed by the snipers on October 3
while mowing the lawn, addresses the purpose of her family’s lawsuit,
saying: “I hope ultimately there will be control over who obtains
firearms…I really hope the shops will be more responsible in their
paperwork and the manufacturers will be more responsible about who they
sell guns to.”
|
1/27/03
|
Legislative Series
Week 1: Introducing Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence
As the Legislative Session
progresses in the
coming weeks, IPGV will provide members, supporters, and the Iowa
Legislature with important information regarding gun violence, gun
control laws, and legislative remedies we believe would reduce the toll
of gun violence if enacted.
In the coming weeks, we will address the following topics:
This Week – Introducing IPGV
Week 2 – Overview of Gun Violence in US and
Iowa
Week 3 – Existing Federal Gun Laws
Week 4 – Existing State Gun Laws
Week 5 – Legislative Remedies on the Federal Level
Week 6 – Legislative Remedies on the State Level
Week 7 – Gun Control as a Political Issue
Introducing Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence
Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
educational organization. Our mission is to reduce firearm
related deaths and injuries in Iowa.
IPGV was founded in 1991 following a mass shooting at the University of
Iowa that left six students and faculty dead, and one student a
quadriplegic. From 1991 until 1998,
IPGV was an all-volunteer organization. In 1998, IPGV received an
operating grant from the Joyce Foundation in Chicago, IL. IPGV is
currently a Joyce Foundation grantee.
The Joyce foundation supports efforts to strengthen public policies in
ways that improve the quality of life in
the Great Lakes region. Its program areas are Education,
Employment, Environment, Gun Violence, Money & Politics, and
Culture.
IPGV views gun violence as a public health problem. We are
concerned with all forms of gun violence—homicide, suicide,
unintentional shootings and nonfatal shootings. We strive for
integrity in our work and accuracy in our reports and statements.
We support strategies that emphasize prevention over punishment and
that are solidly based in research, facts and reasoned analysis.
IPGV is currently operating with 2.5 Full-Time Equivalents out of an
office in Cedar Rapids, IA. John Johnson is Executive Director,
Kirsten Meredith is Communications Coordinator, and Jeremy Brigham is
Research Associate. Staff can be contacted by email at ipgv@mcleodusa.net or by phone at
319-743-7823.
|
2/3/03
|
Legislative Series
Week 2: Overview of Gun Violence in the US and in Iowa
About 29,000 people die each year as the result of gun shot wounds, and
another 80,000-90,000 more are injured in nonfatal shootings. It
is estimated that one-fourth
of nonfatal gun injuries result in paralysis of the victim.
Of the 29,000 who are killed each year, 58%
are suicides, 38% are homicides, and 3% are unintentional
shootings. The remaining are legal interventions or gun deaths of
undetermined intent.
In Iowa, about 190 people die
from gun shot
wounds each year. Iowa’s rate
of gun homicide is below the national average, whereas our rates
of gun suicide and unintentional shootings are about average.
[see table below]
|
U.S
|
Iowa
|
Homicide
|
10,801
|
25
|
Suicide
|
16,586
|
156
|
Unintentional
|
776
|
6
|
Undetermined
|
230
|
2
|
Legal Intervention
|
270
|
3
|
Total
|
28,663
|
192
|
Each type of gun violence occurs in different contexts, has different
causes, and different remedies.
Homicides: Seventy percent of all homicides are committed with a
firearm.
Eighty-three percent of homicide victims are male, and 53% are between
the ages of 15 and 30. Most (75%) gun homicides occur between
people who know each other during arguments or disputes. Only 10%
of all gun deaths are crime-related, i.e., a homicide during another
felony such as a robbery, a rape, or a drug related shooting.
Suicides: Firearms are used in 57% of
all suicides. In Iowa, gun suicides account for 83% of
all gun deaths. Most suicide victims are males, and the
highest rates are recorded in the elderly (65+) and young adult (15-24)
age groups. Suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death for
all people 15-24 years of age. In Iowa, 18 teenagers commit
suicide with a gun each year.
Unintentional Shootings: Unintentional shooting deaths account
for 3% of all gun deaths in both the US and Iowa. Eighty-six
percent of victims are males. Firearms are not a leading cause of
unintentional death for children (14 and under)—in 1997 there were 220
firearm deaths, 1050 drownings, and 3100 motor vehicle deaths.
However, the unintentional gun death rate in the US is 9 times higher
than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
Nonfatal Shootings: Nonfatal shootings can be the result of an
assault, a self-inflicted injury, or an
unintentional injury. For each type of intent, there is
a different ratio of fatal to nonfatal shootings. For assaults,
the ratio of fatal to nonfatal is 1:4, and for unintentional injuries,
it is 1:16. For self-inflicted injuries, the picture is
different, with death occurring 80-90% of the time.
Approximately 183,000-230,000
individuals in the
United States live with a spinal cord injury (SCI). An estimated
one-fourth of these are gun related injuries. Firearms cause
about 10% of traumatic brain injuries (TBI), and 44% of TBI related
deaths.
Overall: The US gun death rate dwarfs that of all other industrialized
countries. The US gun death
rate is 3 times that of Canada, 4 times Australia, 6 times Sweden,
9 times Germany, 14 times Spain, 24 times the United Kingdom, and 196
times Japan. Although Iowa’s death rate is relatively low
for the US, the Iowa rate is still higher than that in many
industrialized countries.
When seeking to prevent deaths and injuries
caused by firearms in the United States, it is imperative to
understand the types of firearms used. One characteristic
of US gun violence that must be recognized is that 75% of gun deaths
and injuries and 85% of gun crimes involve a handgun, as opposed to a
long gun (rifle or shotgun). This fact focuses the attention of
gun violence prevention efforts on control and regulation of
handguns.
Announcement:
Press
Conference
The Iowa Coalition to Prevent Firearm Injury will hold a press
conference at the State Capitol on February 11th at 10:30am. All
are welcome.
|
2/10/03
|
Legislative Series Week
3: Existing Federal Gun Laws
There are five significant federal gun laws
on the books today: the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Federal
Firearms Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Firearm Owners’
Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady Law of 1993.
The
National
Firearms Act of 1934: The first significant gun law passed
in the United States, the National Firearms Act (NFA), was a response
to gangster activity. The NFA regulated machine guns and sawed
off shotguns, which were viewed as “gangster weapons.”
The NFA implemented a tax on dealers, a tax
on purchasers, registration of machine guns and sawed off shotguns, and
10 years of imprisonment for being in possession of an unregulated
“gangster gun.”
The
Federal
Firearms Act of 1938: The Federal Firearms Act (FFA)
established the system we still have today of a network of federal
firearms licensees (FFL’s)—licensed gun dealers. Under the FFA,
anyone could become a licensed dealer by paying a fee of $1 per
year. The
FFA also established a list of prohibited purchasers: those under
indictment, those previously convicted of a violent crime, and
fugitives from justice. However, dealers were not required to
verify that a buyer was not a prohibited purchaser before selling the
weapon. Because it lacked any enforcement provisions, it seems
mostly to have been for show.
The
Gun Control
Act of 1968: The Gun Control Act (GCA) was passed to
address several issues in response to the string of assassinations in
the 1960’s—John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Rev. Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. The GCA prohibited interstate firearm sales,
drawing on the fact that JFK’s alleged assassin—Lee Harvey
Oswald—bought his weapon through mail order; expanded the list of
prohibited purchasers to include minors, users of illegal narcotics,
and persons adjudicated mentally defective; prohibited the importation
of “Saturday Night Specials”—cheaply made handguns—although it did not
prohibit their domestic manufacture; prohibited the importation of
surplus military weapons; and created the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms (BATF), the federal agency charged with enforcing federal
gun laws as well as collecting exise taxes.
The GCA also modified the
requirements for
federal firearms licensees (FFLs). FFLs were required to pay a
fee of $10 a year, and they were required to confirm that the purchaser
was not a minor and resided in the state of purchase. The GCA
also required FFLs to obtain a signed statement that the purchaser was
not in a prohibited category. In other words, the law relied on
the “honor system” to deny sales to prohibited purchasers.
The
Firearm
Owners’ Protection Act of 1986: The Firearm Owners
Protection Act (FOPA) was passed at the urging of the gun lobby to
weaken the Gun Control Act of 1968. It lifted the prohibition on
interstate sales of long guns (although it kept the prohibition on
interstate handgun sales), eliminated all record keeping requirements
for ammunition dealers, reduce the punishment for FFL record keeping
violations from a felony to a misdemeanor, and limited the ATF to only
one unannounced inspection per year per dealer.
In addition, the FOPA prohibited the federal government from
centralizing records of FFL transactions and allowed FFLs to conduct
business at temporary locations other than
that stated on the gun license—for example, gun shows. Finally,
as a bone thrown to gun control advocates, the FOPA implemented a ban
on the further domestic manufacture of machine guns.
The
Brady Law of 1993: The Brady law is usually broken down
into two parts—Interim
Brady and Permanent Brady. Interim Brady required a background
check and a five day waiting period on all handgun sales by FFLs.
Basically, it required FFLs to notify a chief law enforcement officer
of a pending handgun sale and asked them to make a “reasonable effort”
to determine that a potential purchaser was not in a prohibited
category. Interim Brady did not apply to states, like Iowa,
that already had a background check system. (In Iowa, potential
handgun purchasers must first acquire a “permit to acquire” before
they are allowed to buy a handgun.)
Permanent Brady took effect in 1998, and replaced the background check
by the chief law enforcement officer and five day waiting period with
an instant check and no waiting period. It established the
National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS), which is maintained by the federal government.
Permanent Brady also extended the law to apply to all firearms,
not just handguns.
Other federal gun control laws include: ban
on armor piercing handgun ammunition (1986), ban on “plastic
guns”(1988), ban on assault weapons (1994—will sunset in 2004
if not renewed), and the addition of domestic assault conviction (1994)
and being under a court restraining order for domestic violence
(1996) to the list of prohibited firearm purchasers.
The bottom line is this. In the United States, if you are over 18
years of age (21 for handguns), and not in one of the ten prohibited
categories, then you may own as many guns as you like
|
2/17/03
|
Press Release: the
Iowa Coalition for the Prevention of Firearm Injury Asks States to
Regulate Secondary Gun Markets
Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence supports legislation to be
introduced in the Iowa legislature that would require that firearm
sales between two or more unlicensed sellers be conducted through a
federally licensed firearms dealer and meet all federal and state laws.
The dealer could charge a fee up to $10 to offset the cost of
conducting the required background check and keeping records. The bill
provides exemptions for transfers of antique firearms or collectables,
and for firearm transfers between family members.
The bill would simply extend Brady background checks to cover all
firearm sales in addition to sales in gun stores.
This legislation is needed because secondary markets (i.e., firearm
sales by unlicensed sellers) provide criminals and other persons who
are prohibited by law from possessing firearms easy access to guns. A
1999 government study found that of guns
used in crimes, only 11 percent could be traced to the original gun
purchaser from a licensed firearms dealer. The other 89 percent of
crime guns had changed hands at least once after original purchase.
That is, the person who committed the crime obtained the gun from
secondary
markets.
Sources of secondary sales include gun shows, flea markets, estate
sales, firearms sales over the Internet, firearms sales through
classified ads in newspapers, and other person-to-person sales.
The Iowa Coalition to Prevent Firearm Injury held a press conference at
the State Capitol on Feb. 11 to announce its support for the
legislation. Following is the Coalition’s
press release on the event.
Iowa
Coalition to Prevent Firearm Injury Asks State to Regulate Secondary
Gun Sales
2/12/03
Press Release:
Iowa Coalition to Prevent Firearm Injury
c/o Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence
Contact:
John Johnson
Phone: 319-743-7823
Group wants
to extend
Brady background checks to firearm sales by unlicensed sellers in
addition to sales in gun stores
Des Moines, IA – The secondary sale of firearms by unlicensed sellers
allows felons, domestic abusers, the mentally ill, and other persons
prohibited by law from possessing firearms to buy guns without a
background check or record of sale according to the Iowa Coalition to
Prevent Firearm Injury. During a Feb. 11 press conference at the State
Capitol Building, the Coalition announced its support for legislation
to be introduced in the Iowa legislature that would regulate the
secondary sale of firearms by requiring
all firearm sales by unlicensed sellers to be conducted through
a federally licensed firearms dealer.
Under the Brady law (enacted by Congress in
1993), federally licensed firearms dealers are required to conduct
criminal background checks on all buyers and to keep records. However,
the Brady law only applies to firearms sold through licensed firearms
dealers. But dealer sales only account for about 60 percent of all
firearm sales. The remaining 40 percent of firearm sales, an estimated
5.45 million transactions each year, are not subject to background
checks. In the firearm business, firearm sales by unlicensed sellers
are referred to as “secondary sales.”
Sources of secondary sales include gun shows, flea markets, estate
sales, firearm sales over the Internet,
firearm sales through classified ads in newspapers, and other
person-to-person sales.
Studies show that most criminals do not buy
their guns from federally licensed firearms dealers. A 1999
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) study found that
of guns used in crimes, only 11 percent could be traced to the original
gun purchaser from a licensed firearms dealer with a background
check. The other 89 percent of crime guns had changed hands at least
once after the original purchase. That is, the person who committed the
crime obtained the gun from secondary markets.
“For too long, lawmakers have neglected their duty to protect
Americans from gun violence,” said John Johnson, executive director of
Iowans for the Prevention of Gun
Violence. “We call on the Governor and the Iowa Legislature to take
reasonable steps to reduce gun violence in Iowa and set an example for
other states. The question is, do Iowa’s lawmakers have the political
will to do what they know needs to be done?”
Peg Bouska, a member of the Iowa Chapter of
Physicians for Social Responsibility, compared current law with
an airport security system that only required 60 percent of the
passengers boarding an airplane to go through metal detectors. The
other 40 percent would not be required to go through metal detectors.
And furthermore, the passengers would be allowed to decide which
gate they would go through. “Do you think such an airport security
system would be effective?” asked Bouska.
The proposed legislation is supported by the League of Women Voters of
Iowa. Jan McNelly, president, said, “The Brady Law introduced an
important law enforcement tool to help keep guns out of the hands of
criminals – background checks. Brady background checks help prevent the
sale of guns to persons who
are prohibited by law from owning them – felons, domestic abusers, the
mentally ill, etc. Extending Brady background checks to all gun sales
would allow law-abiding Americans to purchase guns, while providing law
enforcement officials with an essential tool to prevent illegal gun
sales.”
Under the proposed legislation, all private
firearm sales between unlicensed individuals would have to
be conducted through a federally licensed firearms dealer. Ownership
of the gun would pass from the seller to the dealer and then
to the buyer. The dealer would be required to conduct a background
check on the buyer as if he were selling from his own inventory.
Dealers could charge a fee of up to $10 to offset the cost of
conducting the background checks and keeping the required records.
Exceptions
are granted for collectables and antique firearms (as defined in
the Iowa Code) and for firearm transfers between family members.
The proposed legislation would not require any new state or federal
resources since it makes use the existing network of federally licensed
firearms dealers and the Instant Criminal Background Check System
maintained by the federal government.
The
Iowa
Coalition to Prevent Firearm Injury supports both legislative and
non-legislative initiatives to reduce firearm death and injury in
Iowa.
|
2/24/03
|
Legislative Series
Week 4: Existing Iowa State Gun Laws
There are three significant Iowa firearms laws on the books
today: requirement for a permit to purchase a handgun,
requirement for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and a child
access prevention law.
Permit
to Acquire
Pistols or Revolvers: Iowa state law requires that an
individual must first obtain a permit to acquire pistols or revolvers
before he/she can buy a handgun in Iowa. Permits are issued by
county sheriffs, who conduct a background check on the applicant.
The permits are good for one year, and permit holders can purchase as
many handguns as they like while the permit is valid.
Permit
to Carry a Concealed Weapon: Iowa state law prohibits the
carrying of dangerous weapons
concealed on or about the person, unless the person possesses
a valid permit to carry weapons. Applicants for permits to carry
are required to complete an approved firearm safety training
course and undergo a background check. In addition, applicants
are required to provide “reasonable justification” of the need to
go armed. Permits are issued by and at the discretion of county
sheriffs.
Iowa is one of 13 states in which permits to carry concealed weapons
are issued at the discretion of the authorized issuing agency.
These states are called “May Issue” states in CCW language.
[Note: Thirty states also require a permit to carry concealed
weapons. However, in these states, the authorized issuing agency
is required to issue a permit to anyone who is not prohibited by
federal or state law from possessing firearms and who meets the state’s
other requirements, e.g., the completion of a firearm safety training
course. These states are called
“Shall Issue” states. Six states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois,
Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska) do not permit the carrying of concealed
weapons, and one state (Vermont) does not require a permit or license
to carry a concealed weapon.]
Child
Access
Prevention (CAP) Law: Iowa state law states that an adult
is guilty of a serious misdemeanor if ALL of the following three events
occurs: (1) an adult leaves a loaded gun in a location accessible to a
minor, (2) a minor gains access to the gun, and (3) the minor displays
the gun in a public place or harms someone with the gun.
Announcement:
Bills
Introduced to Regulate the Secondary Sale of Firearms in Iowa
Legislation has been introduced
in the Iowa
House and Senate to regulate secondary gun markets by requiring a Brady
background check to be conducted
on all gun sales in Iowa. Senate File 163, sponsored by Senators
Jack Hatch, Robert Dvorsky, Joe Bolkcom and Jack Holveck, has been
assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. House File 207,
sponsored by Representatives Jane Greimann and Wayne Ford, has been
assigned to the House Public Safety Committee.
The bills would require that firearm sales
between two or more unlicensed sellers be conducted through
a federally licensed firearms dealer and meet all federal and
state laws. The dealer could charge a fee of up to $10 to offset
the cost of conducting the required background check and keeping
records. The bills provide exemptions for transfers of antique firearms
or collectables, and for firearm transfers between family members.
|
3/3/03
|
Legislative Series
Week 5: Legislative Remedies on the Federal Level
Following are actions
that could be
taken now at the federal level to reduce the toll of gun violence in
the United States. These are: regulation of the gun industry,
reauthorization and strengthening of the assault weapons ban, and
rejecting efforts to pass gun industry immunity bills.
Regulation of the Gun Industry: Even though guns are the second
leading cause of product related death (following automobiles), no
federal agency has authority to regulate guns manufactured and sold in
the U.S. There are more federal
regulations on toy guns than real guns.
Why regulate guns as consumer products? Because thousands of
people are killed and injured each year by firearms, and consumer
product safety regulation has a history of success. For example,
since 1966 when Congress created NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration), the annual death rate from automobile accidents has
decreased 40 percent – from 27.1 deaths per 100,000 in 1966 to 16.1 in
1998—saving approximately 32,000 lives each year. Clearly,
regulation is working in the
automobile industry. It is also working in other places—food products,
drugs, and aviation, to name just a few.
Congress should pass legislation that
would give
the U.S. Department of the Treasury the power to regulate the design,
manufacture, and distribution of guns and ammunition. Treasury
would be given authority to: (1) Set minimum safety standards for guns,
including features such as load indicators, magazine disconnect
devices, integral trigger locking devices, and minimum trigger pulls;
(2) Issue recalls and warnings about defective guns; (3) Collect data
on gun related deaths and injuries, including data such as the specific
type of gun, caliber, and the way the gun
was purchased; and (4) Ban products when no other remedy is sufficient.
From the analysis of the data collected on firearm related deaths
and injuries, Treasury could identify specific guns, classes of guns,
and gun products that are exceptionally likely to be used in gun
deaths, injuries, and crimes, and restrict the availability of such
guns to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to the general public.
Reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban: Assault weapons are
described as such because of their ability to kill on a greater scale
than other firearms. Two key features of assault weapons—a pistol
grip and the capacity to accept a
large magazine—allow them to be fired from the waist in rapid fire
to “hose down” targets.
On September 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act into law, which included the ban on the
manufacture and sale of semiautomatic weapons deemed “assault
weapons.” The bill bans 19 weapons by name (including several
models of AK-47s, the Colt AR-15, the
TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and the Uzi) as well as banning combinations of features
found on many assault weapons (such as large capacity ammunition
magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, barrel shrouds, flash
suppressors and bayonet mounts). However, the ban has a time
limit of 10
years, and it will “sunset” in September of 2004, unless it is
reauthorized by Congress.
It is imperative that Congress
reauthorize
and strengthen the Assault Weapons Ban
in the current session. Because manufacturers were able to
work around the current ban by making minimal design changes to
existing assault weapons, renaming them, and continuing their sale, it
is also important to strengthen the ban to make it more effective.
Opposing Gun Industry Immunity: In the
United States, hundreds of lawsuits are filed each year by victims,
victim’s families, and municipalities affected by gun violence.
These suits seek to hold the gun industry accountable for negligent
manufacture, sale or distribution of the guns used in violence across
the country.
However, efforts are underway to pass a federal gun industry immunity
bill that would eliminate the ability for victims of gun violence to
file suit against the gun industry. Gun industry immunity bills
make gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers immune from lawsuits
filed as a result of their poorly manufactured products or negligent
conduct in the sale or distribution of guns. Such bills would
prohibit not just suits filed by municipalities seeking to recover the
costs of gun violence, but also suits filed by individuals directly
affected by gun violence, e.g. the victims of the Washington sniper
attacks last October.
In order to preserve the only legal recourse
available to individuals and municipalities, it is imperative
to oppose gun industry immunity bills. These bills would
make it virtually impossible to hold an industry already exempt
from federal health and safety standards accountable for the damages
resulting from their negligent conduct.
|
3/10/03
|
Legislative Series
Week 6: Legislative Remedies on the State Level
Following are several important steps that the Iowa Legislature could
take to reduce gun injury and death in Iowa. They are: extending
Brady background checks to all firearm sales, removing gun privileges
of domestic abusers, instituting a one gun a month law, and rejecting
efforts to convert Iowa from a “May Issue” to a “Shall Issue” state.
Extending
Brady
Background Checks
to All Firearm Sales: When a federal firearms licensee
(FFL) – a licensed gun dealer – sells a firearm, he/she must conduct a
criminal background check on the buyer to ensure that the buyer is not
a felon, domestic abuser, minor or other prohibited purchaser.
However, unlicensed sellers who sell firearms from a “personal
collection” do not have to conduct background checks. Venues for
non-dealer sales include gun shows, flea markets, estate sales,
consignment auctions, firearm sales over the Internet, and firearm
sales through classified ads in newspapers.
It is estimated that about 40 percent of all firearm sales—amounting to
5.5 million transactions—are non-dealer (secondary) sales.
Furthermore, a 1999 government study found that of guns used in crimes,
only 11 percent could be traced to the original gun purchaser from a
licensed firearms dealer. The other 89 percent of crime guns had
changed hands at least once after original purchase. That is, the
person who committed the crime obtained the gun from secondary markets.
Extending the Brady background check requirement to all firearm sales
would make it more difficult for prohibited purchasers to buy guns from
unlicensed sellers in Iowa.
Removing
Gun
Privileges of Domestic Abusers: As reported by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a firearm is the most
commonly used weapon in domestic homicide. Women are four times
more likely to
be killed by an intimate partner with a gun than by a stranger using
all means. This is why, under federal law, a person is prohibited
from possessing a firearm if he/she has been convicted of a domestic
violence assault or is under a court restraining order for domestic
violence.
However, it is difficult for law enforcement to enforce the federal law
on the local level because (1) local law
enforcement officials lack authority to enforce federal law, and
(2) federal law enforcement officials are not equipped to respond
effectively to all of the cases that arise in Iowa.
To reduce the lethality of domestic abuse situations, the Iowa
legislature should pass legislation to make it unlawful to possess a
firearm under Iowa state law if a person is prohibited from possessing
a firearm under federal law. This bill would enhance the ability
of Iowa’s law enforcement to enforce the terms of the federal law.
One
Gun a Month
Law: The Brady Law prevents felons and other prohibited
purchasers from buying guns directly from licensed gun dealers.
However, gun traffickers often employ “straw purchasers” (individuals
who may legally purchase a firearm) to buy handguns in bulk. The
guns are then resold on illegal markets—to felons, juveniles and other
persons who are prohibited by law from buying or possessing guns.
The Iowa legislature should pass legislation that would limit handgun
purchases to one handgun per month per person in order to reduce
illegal gun trafficking. The following states have enacted one
gun a month laws: South Carolina (1975), Virginia (1993), Maryland
(1996), and California (1998).
Oppose
“Shall
Issue” Carry Concealed
Weapons Laws: Under Iowa law, a permit is required to
carry a concealed weapon (e.g. , a loaded handgun) in public
places. Applicants are required to provide “reasonable
justification” of the need to go armed. Permits are issued by and
at the discretion of local county sheriffs. Iowa is called a “may
issue” state because the sheriff may or may not issue a permit on a
case basis. Iowa is one of 13 states that are considered “may
issue.”
In 30 other states, a permit or license is also required to carry a
concealed weapon. However, in these states,
the issuing agency is required to issue a permit to anyone who meets
the requirements for a permit set by the state – usually, passing
a background check. These states are called “shall issue” states,
meaning that the issuing agency shall issue a permit as long as the
applicant is not in a prohibited category. The issuing agency
has no discretionary power.
Six states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas)
do not allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. One state
(Vermont) does not require a permit or license to carry a concealed
weapon.
The Iowa legislature should oppose all legislation that would convert
Iowa from a “may issue” to a “shall issue”
state. This conversion would eliminate the ability of Iowa’s
law enforcement to deny concealed carry permits to individuals without
a demonstrated “need to go armed.”
|
3/17/03
|
Legislative Series
Week 7: Gun Control as a Political Issue
In the United States, gun control is viewed by many—particularly
elected officials—as a contentious political issue. The
predominating perception is that support for or opposition to gun
control can make or break a candidate. In fact, the National
Rifle Association claims that gun control was the issue that cost Al
Gore the 2000
election.
The truth of the matter is less clear. Al Gore won in Michigan,
Wisconsin, Iowa and Pennsylvania—states widely known as having a higher
concentration of National Rifle Association members. He also won
the popular vote, and if all of the people in Palm Beach County Florida
who thought they’d voted for Gore (and not Buchannan) had their votes
counted for Gore, he would have won Florida and the election.
Finally, Al Gore never made gun control an issue. In fact, he
backed away from it, stating in one Presidential debate that he was
more like George W. Bush than different from him on the gun control
issue.
Additionally, Democrats won five contentious Senate races against
strongly pro-gun Republican candidates. The pro-gun candidates
who lost were: John Ashcroft (MO), Spencer Abraham (MI), Slade Gordon
(WA), Rod Grams (MN), and Bill McCollum (FL). In the Florida
race, the winning candidate, Bill Nelson (D), made
McCollum’s record on guns an issue in the election. Nelson
defeated McCollum 54 to 46 percent.
And in Iowa, it seems that no matter a candidate’s position on the
issue, he/she can be re-elected year after year. Senator Tom
Harkin (D) and Representative Jim Leach (R) consistently vote for gun
control, and have served in the US Congress for years. On the
other hand, Senator Charles Grassley (R) and Representatives Jim Nussle
(R) and Tom Latham (R) consistently vote against gun control, and
continue to get re-elected to Congress.
What does all this mean? In short, there is
no definite pattern to demonstrate that, in general, a vote for
or against gun control will be the determining factor in the outcome of
an election. Election results throughout our state and this
nation have demonstrated that lawmakers can vote their conscience on
this issue and still win elections. And of course, lawmakers
should take into account the conscience of their constituents.
Public opinion surveys show that the vast majority of Iowans support
government regulation of guns, including closing gun loopholes (87%
Iowans support), requiring all handguns to meet safety standards (89%
Iowans support), and recognizing that regulating guns is important (95%
Iowans support). Source: Frank N. Magid & Associates, 1998 and
2002).
|
3/24/03
|
A Sweeping “Not
Guilty” Verdict for the Gun Industry?
Lawsuits have been filed across our nation by victims of gun violence,
and by municipalities whose resources have been drained by gun
violence, to hold the gun industry accountable for negligence in
manufacturing, distributing, and dealing in firearms. These
lawsuits range from individual encounters with exploding barrels to
city- or state- wide battles with gun trafficking.
In the current session of Congress, the top priority for the National
Rifle Association is to pass legislation that would prohibit lawsuits
such as these from being filed, and even to retroactively dismiss those
suits already filed and proceeding through the legal system, thereby
granting the gun industry a sweeping “not guilty” verdict.
These bills –HR 1036 in the US House and S 659 in the US Senate –would
eliminate the only legal recourse available to
individuals and municipalities affected by gun violence.
In the United States, guns are
unregulated
for consumer health and safety, having been specifically exempted from
the Consumer Safety Act. No federal agency has the authority to
regulate firearm design and distribution.
Consequently, victims have had to resort to the courts in order to
hold the gun industry accountable for their defective or negligent
design, manufacture or distribution of firearms.
We ask you to join us in placing the rights of gun violence victims
above the profits of the gun industry by rejecting HR 1036 and S 659,
which would give the gun industry immunity from lawsuits.
Contact your US Senators and Representatives today,
and tell them to let the courts give the verdict. Support
victims’ rights by rejecting gun industry immunity.
Iowa Representatives:
Senator Tom Harkin: phone - (202)
224-3254; email
Senator Chuck Grassley: phone -
(202) 224-3744;
email
http://grassley.senate.gov/webform.htm
Representative Jim Leach (1st
district): phone -
(202) 225-6576; email
Representative Jim Nussle (2nd
district): phone
- (202)
225-2911; email
Representative Leonard Boswell (3rd
district):
phone - (202) 225-3806; email
Representative Tom Latham (4th
district): phone -
(202) 225-5476; email
Representative Steve King (5th district): phone - 202-225-4426; web form for
constituents
*Congratulations
to
Michael Moore on his Best Documentary Feature Oscar for Bowling
for Columbine
|
3/31/03
|
Gun
Homicides Decrease, Gun
Laws Credited
As reported by Join Together Online on March 24, gun
homicide rates have been decreasing, and gun laws are getting much
of the credit. US gun deaths peaked at 40,000 in 1993, and have
been decreasing ever since, to approximately 29,000 in the year 2000
(the most recent year for which data are available). The majority
of this decrease has been in the number of gun homicides, while the
number
of gun suicides has remained relatively constant at approximately
16,000 per year.
What has caused this decrease in gun homicides? Hypotheses have
been wide ranging, but a growing body of evidence points to reduced gun
possession and gun control laws as major contributing factors to the
reduced rates of gun homicide.
One study supporting this idea found that high rates
of gun possession were directly correlated with higher rates of
gun homicide. The study found that the six US states with the
highest rates of gun ownership (Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi,
West Virginia, and Wyoming) had homicide rates that were three times
higher than the four states with the lowest rates of gun ownership
(Hawaii,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island), causing lead author
Matthew
Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health to state that guns
“lethally
imperil rather than protect Americans.”
The link between strong gun control laws and lower rates of gun
homicide is made when Miller’s study is examined in tandem with another
by the Soros Foundation. The Soros study is, in
effect, a ranking of states based upon the strength of their gun
laws. All of the states that were found in the Miller study to be
high gun, high homicide states were ranked as having weak gun laws by
Soros’ standards, while the four low gun, low homicide states were
listed in the top 10 states with the strongest gun laws in the Soros
analysis. In other words, the states with more guns and more gun
homicide were also found to have fewer or weaker gun laws.
Rates of gun possession/ownership in Iowa are not available.
However, Iowa was ranked 9th highest (tied with North Carolina and
Rhode Island) by the Soros Foundation study evaluating gun laws.
While Iowa’s rank may be relatively high, the quality of Iowa’s gun
laws is another story. On a scale of 1 to 100, only two states
(Massachusetts and Hawaii) scored above 55 and were described by the
report as having strong gun laws. Six states scored between 27
and 53. The remaining states, including Iowa, scored below
20.
Iowa weighed in with a score of 18.
It is not clear how much of the reduction in gun homicide rates is
attributable to rates of gun possession or strength of gun control
laws, but a significant degree of correlation is present. More
research must be done in order to make the connection more clear, and
to reveal which gun control laws are effective and which are not.
This research would help advocates and lawmakers to dedicate their
efforts to the most effective policy strategies available.
|
4/7/03
|
Protect the Public's
Health: Fight Special Protections for the Gun Industry
This is national public health week, which celebrates
the discipline that works to prevent disease and injury and to promote
health. It is unfortunate that this is also a time when the
public’s health is under attack in the form of the NRA’s promotion of
legislation designed to give the gun industry immunity from lawsuits.
Lawsuits are an important tool for public health practice. They
provide an avenue for citizens and municipalities to challenge policies
and products that endanger public health. Lawsuits are especially
significant to the prevention of gun violence because they provide an
incentive for the gun industry, which is unregulated by federal safety
standards, to make their products, and the distribution of them, less
dangerous to the public. In fact, because of liability suits, an
increasing number of gun manufacturers are including safety features
such as internal locking devices in guns to prevent unauthorized
access.
In an effort to lift the burden of legal liability from the gun
industry, the National Rifle Association is pushing legislation to
grant the gun industry special immunity that no other industry
enjoys. If this legislation were to become law, individuals
directly
affected by gun violence, as well as municipalities whose resources
have
been drained by gun violence, would be unable to file suit against
manufacturers, distributors, dealers and trade associations.
In effect, this legislation would be a resounding “Not Guilty” verdict
for the gun industry.
Two bills—HR 1036 and S 659—have been introduced in Congress that would
grant the gun industry immunity from legal liability. The NRA is
pushing the legislation as “tort reform” geared toward eliminating
“frivolous” lawsuits, when in fact the legislation would rewrite
longstanding legal principles and eliminate the possibility for
lawsuits that are far from frivolous. Many suits filed against
the industry have been successful.
One example of a suit that would have been prohibited
is that filed by Greg Pavlides, an Ohio resident, shot by teenagers who
obtained their guns when gun show organizers left tables unattended,
allowing the teens to pick up and walk away with several guns.
The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled that the gun show organizers were
negligent and should pay damages to Greg Pavlides, now a paraplegic.
At this writing, the House Judiciary committee has approved HR 1036
(April 3) and a vote is imminent in the full House.
Join us this week in placing the public’s health above the profits of
the gun industry. Write to your US Senators and
Representatives and tell them to oppose gun industry immunity
legislation.
For more information, visit www.justiceforgunvictims.org, maintained
by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Contact
your elected officials!
U.S. Capitol
Switchboard:
202-224-3121
1.
Tell
your Representative to vote NO on HR 1036.
Representative Jim Leach (1st district): phone - (202) 225-6576; email
Representative Jim Nussle (2nd
district): phone
-
(202) 225-2911; email
Representative Leonard Boswell (3rd
district):
phone - (202) 225-3806; email
Representative Tom Latham (4th
district): phone -
(202) 225-5476; email
Representative Steve King (5th district): phone - 202-225-4426; web form for
constituents
2.
Tell
your Senators to vote NO on S. 659 and to SUPPORT A FILIBUSTER.
Senator Tom Harkin: phone - (202) 224-3254; email
Senator Chuck Grassley: phone - (202) 224-3744; email
http://grassley.senate.gov/webform.htm
|
4/14/03
|
The Gun Industry and
Crime: Former Gun Lobby Executive Confirms the Gun Industry's Role in
Illegal Markets
Robert Ricker spent
nearly 20
years of his life as a lawyer working for the likes of the NRA,
Gun Owners of California, the National Allicance of Stocking Gun
Dealers, and the American Shooting Sports Council. His most
recent role,
however, has been that of the champion of the gun violence prevention
movement's legal efforts to hold the gun industry accountable for
negligence
and misconduct in manufacturing, distributing and/or dealing in
firearms.
Ricker’s role as a gun industry whistleblower began in
February of 2003 when he submitted a declaration to support the lawsuit
brought by 12 California cities and counties against the gun
industry. In his declaration, he acknowledged: “leaders in the
industry have long known that greater industry action to prevent
illegal transactions is possible and would curb the supply of firearms
to the illegal market.”
According to Ricker, gun industry executives are aware
of the diversion of weapons into the illegal gun market through “straw
sales, large-volume sales to gun traffickers and various other channels
by corrupt dealers or distributors,” but are encouraged not to address
the problem because it may look like an admission of responsibility or
guilt.
Ricker’s declaration comes at a time when a debate rages about whether
or not the gun industry should be legally liable. The NRA
contends that allowing individuals and municipalities to file suit
against the gun industry is unfair because it represents a great drain
on the industry, threatening it with nonexistence. Acting on this
notion, the NRA has introduced legislation to immunize the gun industry
from lawsuits filed by individuals and municipalities alike. The
US House of representatives passed this bill last week, with the
help of all of Iowa’s Representatives—Boswell, King, Latham, Leach, and
Nussle. The bill now moves to the Senate.
Gun violence prevention advocates believe that gun manufacturers,
distributors, dealers and trade associations should be legally liable
for their negligence and misconduct which result in weapons flowing to
the illegal market, citizens injured or killed by defective guns or
those lacking important safety features, and the draining of resources
from cities and counties to battle the problem of gun violence.
Suits have been filed by individuals and municipalities across the
country, including one by the NAACP and another by family members of
the victims of the Washington, D.C. sniper.
|
4/21/03
|
IPGV Series: Focus on
Assault Weapons
Many
Americans are
unaware that the federal ban on assault weapons was passed for a period
of 10 years, and will expire in September of 2004 unless it is renewed
by Congress and signed into law by the President. Expiration of
the ban would make manufacture and sale of new assault weapons—such as
AK-47s, TEC-9s, and AR-15s—legal again. (Images of these assault
weapons are provided at the end of this article.)
In order to raise awareness about assault weapons and the federal
Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), IPGV has decided to write a series about
assault weapons. The following topics will be covered
in the coming weeks:
This week – What is an Assault Weapon?
Week 2 – Examining the Assault Weapons Ban
Week 3 – A Resolution on Assault Weapons
Week 4 – Legislative Action in Congress
Week 5 – Conclusion: What You Can Do
Week 1: What is an Assault Weapon?
Civilian assault weapons are semi-automatic versions of
fully automatic weapons, usually designed for military use.
Semi-automatic weapons fire a single bullet each time the trigger
is pulled, while automatic weapons fire continuously while the trigger
is compressed. Military and civilian assault weapons are designed
to lay down a high volume of fire, “hosing down” an area with
bullets.
Essential features of assault weapons include a high muzzle velocity, a
pistol grip, and the capacity to accept large ammunition magazines
(clips). The muzzle velocity of a typical assault
rifle is on the order of 3,000 feet per second (fps), compared to
800-1100 fps for a typical handgun and 1800-2000 fps for a typical
hunting rifle. High muzzle velocity increases the damage a bullet
can do to tissue
by creating a larger bullet cavity.
The pistol grip helps the shooter to point the gun and fire from the
hip, as opposed to from the shoulder, allowing the shooter to “hose
down” a wide area with bullets simply by rotating the hips. The
weapon’s capacity to accept large clips allows the shooter to
fire longer without having to reload.
These features combine to increase the lethality of the
weapons, making them attractive to those who intend to kill on a large
scale, and distinguishing them from hunting or target shooting guns.
To illustrate the destruction that can be done to a human body with an
assault weapon, we turn to a recent Rolling Stone article, “The Bullet
and the damage done” (March 6, 2003):
“They were a young, attractive couple, sitting on a porch in West
Philadelphia, victims of a drive-by shooting…both victims
took two rounds each, including one to each of their left thighs.
They were shot with the trajectory coming up, so the bullets proceeded
up, into their pelvises and their abdomens…both had their abdomens
opened after arrival at [the hospital], to stop bleeding and to repair
injuries to a number of internal organs…they had no blood flow below
the point of impact, and nerves and blood vessels in [their left legs]
were damaged beyond repair… surgeons had no choice but to amputate…if
these two
young people had been shot with a handgun instead of an AK-47, their
legs probably could have been saved.”
Below are links to web pages where images of assault weapons can be
found.
AR-15
http://www.fulton-armory.com/M16.htm
AK-47
http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/ka50.html
TEC-9
http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976333149.htm
|
4/28/03
|
Examining
the Assault Weapons Ban
The federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was passed as part of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It was signed into
law by President Clinton on September 13, 1994. Because it was
only passed for a 10-year period, the AWB will expire in
September of 2004. The legal manufacture and distribution of
currently
banned assault weapons will start up again if the ban is not renewed
and strengthened by Congress and signed into law by the President.
The
Ban:
The bill signed into law in 1994 banned the manufacture of 19 weapons
by name, as well as “copies or duplicates of the firearms in any
caliber”: Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs
(all models); Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); Colt AR-15; Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and
FNC; SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12; Steyr AUG; INTRATEC TEC-9,
TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22; and revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or
similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12. Through this
provision in
the law, Congress attempted to ban all known assault weapons currently
on the market.
In addition, the AWB attempted to ban new weapons that might come on
the market based on their characteristics. In general,
semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns are banned if they contain
two or more specific assault features, such as a pistol grip, flash
suppressor, a bayonet mount, a grenade launcher, a folding stock, a
magazine outside grip or a barrel shroud.
The AWB also banned ammunition clips holding more than 10
rounds. The AWB affected only the civilian market, not that
of law enforcement or the military.
However, any weapons or large capacity ammunition clips manufactured
before law took effect were “grandfathered,” and are still legal and
circulating in the civilian market. In other words, an AK-47
manufactured in 1993 can still be legally possessed and sold
today. In anticipation of the bill’s passage, several gun
manufacturers began major production of assault style weapons in order
to cater to a market threatened with extinction.
Evaluating
the
Ban:
There is some evidence of a positive impact from the implementation of
the AWB. When a gun crime is committed in the US, a trace
is run on the weapon in order to gather any available information about
the weapon. The National Institute of Justice reported in 1999
that requests to trace assault weapons used in crimes decreased by 20%
in the first year after the ban went into effect, and since trace
requests for all other guns declined by only 11%, it is clear that
there was
a bigger decrease in traces of assault weapons linked to crime.
However, the AWB has also been criticized for various weaknesses.
First, it has been criticized for allowing the continued sale of
assault-style weapons through “grandfathering,” because weapons
manufactured before the ban are just as lethal as those that would have
been manufactured afterwards.
Secondly, the language
of the ban has been criticized for being too weak—failing to specify
what is meant by “a copy or duplicate,” and therefore allowing weapons
that are functionally identical to banned weapons to be manufactured
and sold on the civilian market.
Finally, the ban has been criticized for allowing too many assault
features on legal weapons. The ban allows the ability to accept a
detachable magazine and one additional assault feature. As
discussed last week, if this feature is a pistol grip, the weapon has
the two features that make an assault weapon especially lethal.
By allowing both a high capacity magazine and a pistol grip on these
weapons,
the AWB allows a manufacturer to put a post-ban weapon of equal
lethality
to a pre-ban weapon out into the civilian market.
Evading
the Ban:
Gun manufacturers have exploited the weaknesses of the AWB and evaded
the original intent of the ban by producing weapons that are very
similar to those restricted by the ban, but modifying them slightly so
that they fit within regulation.
In essence, gun manufacturers are “rubbing Congress’ nose” in the
assault weapons ban, by producing weapons functionally identical to
banned weapons, and giving these post-ban assault weapons names
like “PCR-6” (PCR stands for “politically correct rifle”) and
“TEC-AB10”
(AB stands for “after-ban”).
|
5/5/03
|
CALL JIM LEACH
US
Representatives
John Conyers (D-MI) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) are planning to
introduce legislation that would renew and strengthen the federal ban
on assault weapons. As noted in last week’s First Monday, the
current assault weapons ban will expire in September of 2004 if not
renewed, and it must be strengthened to prevent gun manufacturers from
working around the ban. This
bill would make the assault weapons ban strong and permanent.
We
support this
legislation. It is imperative that we gather as many Congressional co-sponsors
for the bill as we can. To do this, we need your help.
PLEASE: CALL JIM LEACH! (202) 225-6576
·
Ask him to become an “original co-sponsor” of the Conyers-McCarthy bill
to renew and strengthen the assault weapons ban.
· Tell him you support the bill.
· Tell him that we need him to be
a strong and vocal supporter of this bill.
· Tell him that the bill needs Republican
co-sponsors.
· Tell him that 70% of Americans support
renewing the assault weapons ban.
Jim Leach has a nearly flawless record for supporting gun violence
prevention measures, and in a recent town meeting in Cedar Rapids,
when asked if he supports renewing the federal assault weapons ban,
he said: “Yes I do.”
It will only
take a
minute! (202) 225-6576
Pass this alert along to other Leach constituents. He needs to
know there is broad support for this bill!
|
5/12/03
|
Iowa
Resolution on
Assault Weapons
WHEREAS, military style, semiautomatic assault weapons represent an
unreasonable risk to the nation’s law enforcement personnel and the
general public; and
WHEREAS, the current federal assault weapons ban is due to expire on
September 13, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the failures of the current assault weapons ban are
well known, allowing gun manufacturers to make minor modifications to
their assault weapons, rename them, and market them as legal post-ban
products; and
WHEREAS, reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban without
correcting the limitations of the current ban will allow military
style, semiautomatic assault weapons such as the Bushmaster XM-15
assault rifle, Olympic Arms PCR-6 assault rifle (stands for
“politically correct rifle”) and AB-10 assault pistol (stands for
“after ban”) to continue to be sold to the general public, and
WHEREAS, gun manufacturers openly discuss and display their ability to
circumvent the current law.
THEREFORE, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on the 108th
Congress to pass and President Bush to sign legislation that
reauthorizes, strengthens, and improves the assault weapons ban so that
these weapons of war are effectively banned for civilian use.
SIGNED this _____ day of _______________, 2003.
_______________________________________
Signature
_______________________________________
Name
_______________________________________
Address 1
_______________________________________
Address 2
_______________________________________
Email
To support this resolution, you can sign online at our Action
Center via email or by downloading
a PDF of the resolution.
Announcement!
Iowa City Area – On Tuesday, May 20th, Thai Flavors (340 E. Burlington
St. in Iowa City) will donate 20% of its lunch and dinner proceeds
to CAP Gun Violence, a Johnson County group dedicated to gun violence
prevention. CAP-GV organizer Maria Kummer offers the following:
Please consider going to Thai Flavors for lunch (11:30-2) or
dinner (5-9 pm) on May 20th – it's really delicious food with a lot
of options (mild to hot & spicy, vegetarian or meats) and the
prices
are reasonable, especially considering the size of the entrees. Don't
miss the ice cream with sticky rice for dessert!
Please invite friends and pass the word at your place of work or
worship.
It would be great to meet some of you there!
|
5/19/03
|
Legislative
Action in
Congress
Two bills have been introduced in the US Congress to reauthorize the
federal assault weapons ban – one in the Senate and one in the
House. However, the bills are not the same and cannot be viewed
as companion bills.
In the Senate, Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who was the original sponsor of
the 1994 assault weapons ban, has introduced legislation – S. 1034, the
“Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003” – that would
reauthorize the federal assault weapons ban and make it
permanent.
As discussed in a previous First Monday (April 28), the existing
assault weapons ban has failed to meet the original intent of
Congress. Gun manufacturers have been able to evade the ban by
making minor modifications to their weapons, renaming them, and
marketing them as legal post-ban products.
For example, the “legal” Colt Match Target Rifle is functionally
identical to the banned Colt AR-15 (the civilian version of the M-16
used by US armed forces). See photos at these sites:
Colt AR-15 (banned)
http://prebanarms.com/detail.asp?product_id=c542
Colt Match Target Rifle (not banned)
http://www.colt.com/colt/html/a2g5_matchtarcomphbar.html
Thus, a straight reauthorization of the existing assault weapons ban
would, unfortunately, leave the door open for gun manufacturers to
continue to evade the ban – permanently.
In the House, Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI)
have introduced legislation – H.R. 2038, the “Assault Weapons Ban and
Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003” – that would improve the
current language of the ban and make it permanent. This bill
would renew the assault weapons ban in a way so as to meet the original
intent of Congress when it passed the law in 1994.
The McCarthy-Conyers bill would increase the list of banned weapons to
include those manufactured since 1994 specifically designed to
circumvent the ban. It would prohibit the future manufacture of
copycat weapons by improving the definition of “assault weapon” to
include any weapon that can accept a high capacity ammunition clip and
has one additional assault feature—such as a pistol grip. It
would require that a background check be conducted on transfers of
lawfully possessed assault weapons. It would strengthen the ban
on possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding
devices. The House bill was introduced with sixty-nine original
co-sponsors.
IPGV supports the McCarthy-Conyers bill as introduced in the
House. We have issued a press release to this effect, which is
located at www.ipgv.org/pressreleases.html.
Furthermore, we would like anyone who
supports the effective reauthorization of the federal assault weapons
ban to
call Representatives McCarthy and Conyers to express support.
It is a crucial time for them to hear that we appreciate their
leadership
and their willingness to stand up to the gun lobby and do the right
thing.
These thank you calls are very much appreciated and at this point can
be very helpful, so please give
them
a call today.
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY):
DC Office: 202 225-5516
District Office: 516 739-3008
Representative John Conyers (D-MI):
DC Office: 202 225-5126
District Office: 313 961-5670
Thanks!
Stay tuned next week to find out how you can be involved in
reauthorizing the assault weapons ban!
|
5/26/03
|
Memorial
Day Holiday
|
6/2/03
|
What You Can
Do
Over the
last few
weeks, we have examined in depth the issue of assault weapons and the
federal assault weapons ban. We have identified the
characteristics of an assault weapon that make it especially lethal –
capability to accept large capacity ammunition, a forward grip such as
a pistol grip or heat shield that facilitates firing from the hip, and
the exit velocity of the bullet that increases the damage done to the
human body.
There are currently two bills introduced to deal with the problem of
assault weapons in our society: H.R. 2038, the “Assault Weapons Ban and
Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003,” introduced in the House by
Representatives McCarthy (D-NY) and Conyers (D-MI), and S. 1034, the
“Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003,” introduced in the
Senate by
Diane Feinstein (D-CA).
Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence strongly supports the
McCarthy-Conyers bill in the House, the only piece of legislation
proposed that would effectively ban assault weapons from the civilian
market.
Following are a list of action steps that you can take to encourage the
passage of the McCarthy-Conyers bill. Please do what you can to
keep assault weapons out of your neighborhood.
- Call Representatives McCarthy and
Conyers to
express your support for the strong bill they have introduced and their
essential leadership.
- Representative Carolyn McCarthy
(D-NY):
- District Office: 516 739-3008
- Representative John Conyers
(D-MI)
- DC Office: 202 225-5126
- District Office: 313 961-5670
- Call your representative to
encourage his/her
support of the McCarthy-Conyers bill. Ask your representative to
be a co-sponsor of the bill.
- Representative Jim Leach (1st
district):
phone - (202) 225-6576; email
- Representative Jim Nussle (2nd
district):
phone - (202) 225-2911; email
- Representative Leonard Boswell
(3rd
district): phone - (202) 225-3806; email
- Representative Tom Latham (4th
district):
phone - (202) 225-5476;
email
- Representative Steve King (5th
district):
phone - 202-225-4426; web form for
constituents
- Sign the Iowa Assault Weapons
Resolution,
on-line at www.ipgv.org/actioncenter.html.
- Take the Resolution to social
events, groups,
and friends. The resolution and a sign-up sheet can be downloaded
from the IPGV website at www.ipgv.org/actioncenter.html.
- Submit the Resolution to your
local city
council for ratification. Contact IPGV for any assistance you may
require.
- Submit the Resolution to your
state and local
political party for inclusion in the party platform.
- Take the resolution to your local
police
department or sheriff’s office for endorsement. One out of every
five law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty is killed with
an assault weapon.
- Write a letter to the editor to
support the
McCarthy-Conyers bill. See past First Mondays on our website for
talking points and information: www.ipgv.org/fmemarchive2003.html.
- Stay Tuned to First Monday for
updates
and action alerts regarding the reauthorization of the federal assault
weapons ban.
|
6/9/03
|
It Wasn't Guns
By Celinda Lake
The
following is
an op-ed by Celinda Lake,
President of Lake Snell Perry and Associates, a research-based strategy
firm, and one of the Democratic Party’s leading political strategists.
Recent remarks by political analysts,
Congressional
aides, and even some Democratic presidential candidates have helped
perpetuate the myth that support for gun safety is political
poison. Put simply, this is not true.
Much of the debate on the political salience of gun safety is based on
the 2000 elections. Whether Democrats or Republicans advanced
their cause based on their position on guns is a disputed
question. On the one hand the NRA wants politicians to believe it
prevented the Democrats from taking back the House of Representatives,
and that it cost Al Gore the Electoral College. On the other
hand, reasonable people would point out victories in swing states that
were due largely to support for gun violence prevention efforts.
As everyone remembers, the battleground states of 2000 were the
industrial powerhouses of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
The National Rifle Association committed the majority of its resources
to these states, as did gun safety advocates. Al Gore won all
three
and by bigger margins than expected. Why? Because Gore’s
support
for gun laws like criminal background checks on all gun sales won huge
favor
in suburban areas. For example, Gore won the traditionally
Republican
Philadelphia suburbs by 55,000 votes. These issues are
particularly
strong with the suburban women voters who voted Democratic in 2000 but
Republican in 2002.
The NRA has chosen to ignore its losses in these Midwestern states with
high rates of gun ownership. Instead, they tout their successes
in West Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas. But West Virginia went
for Bush because miners were afraid unfoundedly so that Mr. Gore’s
environmental policies might lead to job losses. And Republicans
were effective
at appealing to religious conservatives in Arkansas and Tennessee who
had
come to see Mr. Gore as too liberal. Did Al Gore’s stand on gun
safety
play a role in this? Perhaps. But for the NRA to argue that
this single issue swung these states into the Bush column is
revisionist
history at its worst.
Still not convinced? Then how about comparing Democratic
congressional wins in 2000 and 2002? In 2000, when Democratic
candidates stressed gun safety policies to attract suburban votes, they
picked up an astonishing five seats in the Senate and two in the
House. In 2002, when Democrats actively shed their gun violence
prevention credentials, they lost ground in both the House and
Senate. This issue can be particularly important in Presidential
years where younger and suburban voters carry more weight.
As important as it is to revisit past campaigns, it is also vitally
important to talk about future ones. What has changed on gun
issues since 2000? Fundamentally, our homeland security has
become more insecure. We are highly cognizant of terrorists and
what they can
do. For the first time in a decade, crime especially violent
crime
is on the rise. And a study released just last week by the
Congressional
Research Service showed that international terrorists can easily
exploit
U.S. gun laws to arm themselves.
Americans inherently understand that stronger gun laws enhance our
security. They overwhelmingly favor renewing and strengthening
the federal ban on military-style assault guns. One in five
police officers killed in the line of duty is shot with these
rapid-fire weapons designed to maximize death and injury. Why
would we want to let this ban
sunset and put our first-responder police officers at even greater risk?
It’s not just registered voters who feel this way either.
Gun owners and NRA supporters favor sensible measures like requiring
a background check on every gun transaction, by 86% and 82%
respectively.
The leadership of the extremist gun lobby is out of step with its
members,
who understand that background checks prevent criminals and terrorists
from exploiting our nation’s lax gun laws to arm themselves.
Any Democrat looking to strengthen and distinguish his or her national
security credentials without coming out strongly for improving our
nation’s gun laws is making a strategic blunder. It is made even
worse considering this is the one national security issue President
Bush dares not embrace; the NRA’s stranglehold on the Republican Party
will not allow it.
Politics aside, it is time for the Democratic Party and its candidates
to again listen to their consciences on this issue. Reducing
gun-related death and carnage is a moral imperative. Every year
nearly 30,000 Americans die at the barrel of a gun. When the
Republican leadership is more interested in doing the NRA’s bidding
than protecting communities from gun violence, Democrats ought to stand
and fight, not run to the right. It is time for Democrats to lead
and to listen to the American people,
and proclaim their support for gun policies that secure the homeland
and
save lives.
|
6/16/03
|
Going Once.
Going Twice. Sold - To
the "Domestic Abuser" in the Front Row
IPGV Report Reveals How Consignment Auction Houses Provide Convenient Venues for Felons, Domestic Abusers,
Minors, and Other Prohibited
Purchasers to Buy Guns Without a Background Check
Des Moines, IA - Approximately four
out of five consignment auction businesses in Iowa are unlawfully
“engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms without a license to
do so, according to a report released today (June 11th) by Iowans for
the Prevention of Gun Violence (IPGV) at a press conference in Des
Moines.
The report, “Regulating Secondary Gun
Markets
- Focus on Consignment Auction Businesses,” documents the results of a
survey by IPGV of consignment auction businesses in Iowa that sell
firearms
as part of their regular trade or business. The survey found that
of 34 consignment auction businesses that sell firearms on consignment,
28 (82 percent) are not licensed to sell firearms. The survey was
conducted
by telephone in May 2003.
Only one of the surveyed consignment
auction
businesses, Auction Outlet of Omaha in Des Moines, responded that they
were a federally licensed firearms dealer. Five consignment
auction businesses responded that they arrange for their firearm sales
to be conducted through a licensed firearms dealer.
Under federal law (Title 18, United
States Code),
it is unlawful for any person to engage in the business of dealing in
firearms without a license. The penalty is a fine, imprisonment
for not more than five years, or both.
As applied to a dealer, the term “engaged in the business” means
– a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in
firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal
objective
of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of
firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional
sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a
personal
collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal
collection
of firearms.
In a typical consignment auction business, an auctioneer enters into a
consignment agreement with an owner of firearms to sell the owner's
firearms. The auctioneer takes possession of the firearms in advance of
the auction. The firearms are inventoried and tagged for identification
and typically arranged on tables for viewing by the general public
prior
to the auction. Sometimes, photographs of the firearms are posted on
the
auctioneer’s website. The auctioneer often advertises upcoming auctions
in newspapers and other media outlets. The auctioneer receives a
commission
or percentage, usually 10 to 25 percent, of the final selling price of
each firearm sold by the auctioneer.
“For the typical consignment auction business, it is clear that the
auctioneer devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as
a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of
livelihood and profit,” said John Johnson, executive director of
IPGV. “Thus, consignment auctioneers meet the key elements of the
definition of being “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms,
and therefore, need a
license to do so lawfully.”
IPGV observed firearm sales at two consignment auction houses - Hoge's
Then & Now Auction House in Coggin and Sharpless Auctions in Iowa
City. At Hoge's Then & Now Auction House, IPGV witnessed the
sale of approximately 45 firearms over the course of six
auctions.
At Sharpless Auctions, IPGV witnessed the sale of approximately 41
firearms
on a single night. Neither auction house is licensed to sell firearms.
IPGV has documented its observations at Hoge’s Then & Now Auction
House and Sharpless Auctions in letters to Charles Larson, Sr., U.S.
Attorney for Iowa’s Northern District (which includes Coggin) and
Steven Colloton, U.S. Attorney for Iowa’s Southern District (which
includes Iowa City). The letter asks the U.S. Attorneys’ offices to
enforce federal firearms laws that relate to dealing in firearms.
“Dealing in firearms without a license is not just a technical
violation of federal law; it is a matter of public safety,” explained
Kirsten Meredith, IPGV's communications director. “Under the Brady Law,
federally licensed firearms dealers are required to conduct criminal
background checks on
all buyers. However, unlicensed auctioneers who sell firearms on
consignment do not conduct background checks. Thus, these consignment
auction businesses provide convenient venues for felons, domestic
abusers, minors, even terrorists and other persons who are prohibited
by law from possessing firearms to buy firearms without having to
undergo a background check. This puts Iowans at increased risk of gun
violence.”
|
6/23/03
|
UCLA Study: Gun
Dealers Willing to Aid Illegal Gun Sales
Below is a press release from the
Justice For Gun
Victims campaign. Justice for Gun Victims is a collaboration of
domestic violence prevention, civil rights, and gun violence prevention
organizations dedicated to stopping the gun lobby’s attempt to grant
the firearms industry legal immunity. For additional information,
visit www.justiceforgunvictims.org.
UCLA STUDY: GUN DEALERS WILLING TO AID
ILLEGAL GUN SALES
As
Congress considers legal immunity for gun dealers, study shows half of
gun dealers willing to facilitate illegal “straw” purchases
Washington, DC – As Congress considers legislation that would immunize
gun dealers from legal accountability, a new study by researchers at
the University of California, Los Angeles showed more than half of the
gun stores surveyed were willing to facilitate illegal “straw”
purchases.
A “straw” purchase is a transaction in which the actual purchaser
uses someone else to undergo a background check and buy the handgun for
him/her. The study is the first to analyze the willingness of
dealers
to engage in such sales, which are illegal under federal law.
The peer-reviewed research, which appears in this week’s edition of the
journal Injury Prevention, studied 120 gun dealers randomly selected
from 20 major U.S. cities. In telephone interviews, undercover
researchers asked gun dealers for advice on purchasing a handgun under
one of three scenarios. Two of the scenarios suggested legal
transactions. In the third scenario, the researcher asked about
purchasing a handgun
for someone else who “needs me to buy her/him a handgun” – a clear
suggestion that the transaction was likely an illegal straw
purchase. Key findings of the study included:
- 52.5% of the 120 gun dealers
surveyed were
willing to help a potential handgun buyer purchase the handgun for
someone else, even though such transactions are illegal.
- 20% of gun dealers in a smaller
follow-up
survey were willing to sell a handgun to a researcher who said “My
girl/boyfriend needs me to buy her/him a handgun because she/he isn’t
allowed to.” One gun dealer responded “[A]s long as you have no
record, you can come down here and pick one up and put it in your
name.” – indicating a clear willingness to facilitate a blatantly
illegal sale.
- Gun dealers in the Northeast
(Baltimore, New
York City, Philadelphia) were least likely to facilitate illegal sales;
dealers in the West (Denver, Seattle, Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego)
were more likely; dealers in the South (Memphis, Nashville,
Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso,
Austin, Fort Worth) and Midwest (Cleveland, Indianapolis) were the most
likely to facilitate illegal sales.
“In the current regulatory environment,
gun dealers
are the last line of defense between handguns and the straw purchasers
who transfer them to criminals,” said Joshua Horwitz, Executive
Director of
the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the organization spearheading the
Justice for Gun Victims campaign. “This study shows the
recklessness of many dealers – recklessness that would be rewarded if
Congress grants dirty
dealers perpetual legal immunity.”
Legislation to
Protect Gun
Dealers Moving Through Congress
The study comes as Congress considers broadly shielding gun dealers,
distributors, and manufacturers from legal accountability – even if
they act recklessly. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the
measure, H.R. 1036, on April 9, 2003. The Senate may act on its
companion, S. 659, within weeks.
President Bush has vowed to sign the bill, which is the National Rifle
Association’s top legislative priority.
The Sniper Gun
Store
The study also comes one week after revelations that Bull’s Eye Shooter
Supply, the Tacoma, Washington, gun store from which the DC-area
Bushmaster sniper rifle originated, was also linked to the 1999 mass
shooting at
a Los Angeles Jewish Community Center. The Educational Fund to
Stop
Gun Violence released FOIA information it had obtained on the gun
store,
which showed tell-tale signs of gun trafficking.
Finally, the study reinforces recent comments by Robert A. Ricker, a
former high-ranking NRA official and gun industry lobbyist, who blew
the whistle on the industry’s actions that aid criminal access to
guns. Mr. Ricker said in an affidavit that many industry insiders
maintain a “see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil” mentality when it
comes to business practices that facilitate criminal gun access.
|
6/30/03
|
Grassley, NRA Work
to Undermine
Victims' Rights
The US House of Representatives recently passed, and the US Senate may
soon consider, a bill that would grant the gun industry immunity from
civil lawsuits. The bill – S.659, the “Protection of Lawful
Commerce in Arms Act” – would not only prohibit future lawsuits, but
would dismiss all current lawsuits pending in the courts. The
Senate bill currently has
52 co-sponsors – including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley – and can only be
stopped by a filibuster.
This bill would grant the gun industry special protections that no
other industry enjoys, immunizing it from legal liability.
Furthermore, it would deny gun violence victims and survivors the
opportunity to exercise their legal rights.
Sponsors of this legislation claim that it is aimed at reforming tort
law and preventing “frivolous” lawsuits from bankrupting the gun
industry. They further claim that this legislation is needed to
prevent lawsuits against gun manufacturers that are filed when someone
uses a properly functioning firearm in an act of violence.
These arguments ring hollow. Lawsuits currently filed against the
gun industry focus not on suing manufacturers for the actions of those
who obtain weapons, but on holding the gun industry accountable for its
own negligence in the manufacture, marketing and distribution of
firearms.
Lawsuits that could be prohibited by this legislation are not
frivolous; in fact, many have proved to be meritorious in proceeding to
trial despite gun industry appeals to have them dismissed.
One lawsuit that could be thrown out of court if this legislation
becomes law is that filed by families of the victims, and one survivor,
of the
Washington DC area sniper shootings against the gun manufacturer and
gun
dealer whose negligence allowed the alleged shooters to obtain the
weapon
used in the attacks.
Although both of the alleged snipers, John Allen Muhammad and John
Lee Malvo, were prohibited from purchasing firearms, they were able to
obtain the Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle used in the sniper shootings
from Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Washington. Bull’s
Eye’s
negligence is unquestioned. Scores of guns routinely “disappeared” from
the store and its records were so inadequate that Bull’s Eye could not
account
for the Bushmaster assault rifle used in the sniper shootings when
asked
by federal agents for records of sale for the weapon. At least
238
guns have “disappeared” from Bull's Eye in the last three years alone.
In addition, Bushmaster continued to sell to Bull’s Eye despite years
of audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) showing
that Bull's Eye had dozens of missing guns. By continuing to sell
its assault weapons to Bull’s Eye, Bushmaster demonstrated a blatant
disregard for public safety, putting profits above the general welfare
of Americans.
The system of government in this country distributes responsibility to
all three branches of government. The courts should maintain
their role in determining, on a case by case basis in accordance with
American tort law, whether or not a lawsuit is frivolous. It is
not the role of Congress to make this determination.
It is a matter of great concern that the Congress should single out one
industry – especially an industry already unregulated by federal health
and safety standards – as being above the law when it comes to putting
the health and safety of American citizens at risk.
Grassley’s support for the gun industry immunity bill is not
unexpected. He received $9,900 from the NRA during his 2000
Senate campaign.
He has an A rating from the NRA and has voted with the gun lobby over
90%
of the time (19 out of 21 votes) since 1991. Grassley obviously
places his loyalty to the gun lobby above his concern for the victims
of gun violence.
Evidently, Grassley is the kind of politician referred to by Samuel
Cameron, a Republican “boss” in Philadelphia in the 1880’s, when he
said: “An honest politician is one who, when bought, stays
bought.”
|
7/7/03
|
n/a
|
7/14/03
|
Is the NRA Believable?
As we have previously written in this space, the federal ban on assault
weapons, which was enacted by Congress in 1994, will expire next year
unless it is renewed by this Congress and signed by President Bush.
But straight reauthorization of the assault weapons ban is not enough.
Unfortunately, soon after the ban took effect in 1994, gun
manufacturers began circumventing the ban by making minor changes to
their assault weapons, renaming them, and marketing them as post-ban
products. When in fact, these post-ban weapons are nothing more than
‘knockdowns” of banned assault weapons such as the AK-47, AR-15, and
TEC-DC9. Therefore, IPGV supports the McCarthy-Conyers bill introduced
in the House of Representatives that would reauthorize and strengthen
the assault weapons ban in a way to meet the original intent
of Congress when it pass the original ban in 1994.
It should come as no surprise that the National Rifle Association is
opposed to reauthorization of the assault weapons ban in any form. And
as is often the case, the NRA sees nothing wrong with lying to
Americans
to advance its position. The NRA seems to believe that if you tell a
lie
often enough, it will become true.
The NRA’s latest assault on the truth is that assault weapons are
rarely used in crime. This lie is not only posted on the NRA’s own
website, but it is also promulgated on websites of various gun rights
supporters. The
lie was repeated by NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre in a
May
15 interview with Leon Harris on CNN Live Today. LaPierre said, “They
(assault
weapons) are not used in crime.”
I guess it comes down to what you mean by the word “crime”. A recent
study by the Violence Policy Center documented that for the four-year
period
1998-2001, at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers killed in
the
line of duty (approximately one out of every five) were shot to death
with
an assault weapon (“Officer Down” – Assault Weapons and the War
on
Law Enforcement). Apparently the NRA does not consider the
killing
of 41 law enforcement officers a crime.
Following is a typical incident.
“On May 29, 1998, one police officer was killed and two were wounded
with an SKS 7.62mm rifle (an AK-47 “knockdown”). Officer Dale Claxton
stopped a truck that had been reported stolen the day before. As
Officer Claxton
was checking the stolen truck’s license plate, a passenger in the truck
fired approximately 40 rounds through the front of Claxton’s police
cruiser. Montezuma (Colorado) County Sheriff’s Deputy Jason
Bishop responded to
the radio call of an officer being shot, and was wounded as his cruiser
was hit with approximately 40 more rounds from the SKS. Minutes later,
Deputy
Todd Martin was wounded in the left arm and right leg. Three suspects,
described by authorities as “anti-government, end-of-the-world-fearing
survivalists,” escaped into Colorado. Two of the suspects were later
found dead, while
the third, Jason Wayne McVean, is still at large.” (Source:
“Officer
Down” Assault Weapons and the War on Law Enforcement)
If the NRA is willing to lie about the use of assault weapons in crimes
in the face of documented evidence of the contrary, why should anyone
believe anything they say?
|
7/21/03
|
Legislation
Introduced in the Senate to Renew and Strengthen the Federal Assault
Weapons Ban
Bill Would
Meet Original
Intent of Congress, to Protect
Americans and Law Enforcement Personnel
Cedar Rapids,
IA –
Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence (IPGV) today announced its
strong support for legislation introduced in the Senate to renew the
federal assault weapons ban. The legislation, introduced by
Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Jon Corzine (D-NJ), would not only
make the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
permanent, but it would also significantly strengthen current law to
meet the original intent of Congress. The Senate bill (S. 1431)
is a companion bill to the “Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement
Protection Act of 2003”, introduced in the House of Representatives in
May by Reps. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI).
The federal assault weapons ban (AWB) was enacted by Congress in 1994
as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
However, the current AWB has a time limit of 10 years and will expire
on September 13, 2004, unless reauthorized by the 108th Congress and
signed into law by President Bush. Both President Bush and
Attorney General John Ashcroft have stated their support for the
assault weapons ban. Ashcroft has said that the ban is
constitutional.
“Assault weapons are weapons of war. They are designed to hose
down individuals with a spray of lethal bullets. They have no
place in a civil society,” noted John Johnson, IPGV’s executive
director.
Unfortunately, the current AWB has failed to meet the intent of
Congress when it passed the ban in 1994. Gun manufacturers have been
able to circumvent the ban by making small modifications to their
weapons, renaming them, and marketing them as legal post-ban models.
Examples are the Colt Match Target Rifle, Olympic Arms PCR-7 (stands
for “politically correct rifle”), and
Intratec AB-10 (stands for “after ban”).
The limitations of the current AWB are well documented and known by gun
violence prevention groups, the gun lobby, law enforcement, the media,
and Congress. The Lautenberg bill would address these concerns,
with measures including a redefinition of the term “assault weapon” to
include any semiautomatic rifle, shotgun, or pistol that can accept a
detachable magazine and includes one listed additional assault feature
such as a pistol grip, fore-end grip, or collapsible stock. This
crucial improvement recognizes the characteristics that make an assault
weapon especially lethal.
Kirsten Meredith, IPGV’s communications director said, “While the gun
industry has blatantly evaded the current law and continued to
manufacture and sell post-ban assault weapons, Americans continue to
die. One of every
five law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty are killed
with
assault weapons – many times copycat models that do not fall under the
current
ban.”
Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence considers that
military-style, semiautomatic assault weapons constitute an
unreasonable risk of death and injury to all Americans, especially law
enforcement personnel who must deal with criminals who possess these
weapons. Therefore, IPGV supports the Lautenberg bill to renew and
strengthen the federal assault weapons ban to meet the
original intent of Congress.
###
Thank Senators Lautenberg and Corzine
for their
commitment to keeping assault weapons off our streets! Express
your support for the bill (S. 1431) they have introduced to renew the
assault weapons ban!
The Honorable
Frank
Lautenberg
United States Senate
324 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3224
The Honorable
Jon Corzine
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: 202-224-4744
|
7/28/03
|
Democratic
Presidential
Candidates and Gun Violence Prevention
As discussion of
the
nine official Democratic Presidential Candidates heats up, IPGV would
like
to provide specific information on each candidate and his/her position
on
gun control.
In addition, we would like to enlist your help in gathering relevant
information on each candidate. When a candidate comes to your
town for a town meeting, forum, or other event, go to the event and ask
the candidate about his/her position on gun control.
Below are two questions that you can ask. Next time you attend an
event with a candidate, don’t forget to bring these questions
along!
Then, send the candidate’s response to IPGV at ipgv@qwest.net. We will publish
their
responses in First Monday and on our website.
1. Assault Weapons Ban
The 1994 federal assault weapons ban will expire in 2004, unless
renewed by this Congress and signed by President Bush. Furthermore, gun
manufacturers have been able to evade the current ban by making minor
modifications to their
weapons, renaming them, and marketing them as legal post-ban products.
An
example is the Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle used by the Washington DC
area
snipers. This weapon is functionally identical to the Colt AR-15
assault rifle
banned by name under current law.
Do you support legislation introduced in the U.S. House of
Representatives by Representatives McCarthy and Conyers that would
reauthorize and strengthen the assault weapons ban to meet the original
intent of Congress when it passed the ban in 1994?
[Note: This question is especially relevant to Representatives Kucinich
and Gephardt.]
2. Gun Industry Immunity
Legislation is pending in the U.S. Senate that would grant the gun
industry – manufacturers, dealers and trade associations – immunity
from civil lawsuits filed by municipalities, cities and even
individuals. This legislation would not only prohibit future lawsuits,
but would dismiss all current lawsuits pending in the courts. This
legislation has already passed in the House and President Bush has
stated that he would sign.
Do you support the gun industry immunity legislation working its way
through
Congress?
[Note: This question is especially relevant to Senators Kerry, Edwards,
Graham, and Lieberman.]
In the weeks to follow, we will examine the positions of the nine
candidates in the following order, based on a random drawing we held
here at the IPGV office:
Next Week – Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Former Gov. Howard Dean, & Sen.
Bob
Graham
Week 3 – Sen. John Edwards, Sen. John Kerry, & Amb. Carol Moseley
Braun
Week 4 – Rep. Dick Gephardt, Rev. Al Sharpton & Rep. Dennis Kucinich
For detailed information on the voting records, public statements, and
survey responses of various candidates on the issue of gun violence
prevention, visit
the new site maintained by the Washington, D.C. based Coalition to Stop
Gun
Violence at: www.candidatesonguns.org.
|
8/4/03
|
Lieberman, Dean and Graham
on Gun Violence
Sen. Joseph
Lieberman:
Connecticut Senator Joseph
Lieberman has voted with gun control 90% of the time since his career
as a
Senator began in 1988. He voted for
both the Brady bill and the federal ban on assault weapons.
Senator Lieberman has expressed his
support for an individual rights interpretation of the Second
Amendment,
stating: “American citizens have a right to own firearms. It is no more
unlimited that any other right that we have.” Senator
Lieberman does not support the ideas of
licensing and/or
registration, saying that gun laws should be focused on “stopping
criminals and
children and others who shouldn't have guns from getting them,” and
that proposals
such as licensing and registration would be violations of “that
fundamental
right” to own firearms.
Despite this position, Senator Lieberman
has argued that gun control is “not an ideological or constitutional
issue, but
a question of common sense” and that it is “not a hard line to take.
Nor should
it be a hard line to draw, in order to provide safe havens for our
families.”
Senator Lieberman has described American
gun violence in terms of “children and teenagers wielding guns,” which
he sees
as “a national disgrace.” He argues that the first step toward ending
the
violence is to get handguns “out of the hands of teenagers.” He acknowledges that gun violence has
threatened Americans’ “collective sense of security.”
Senator Lieberman was co-sponsor, with
Senator John McCain (R-AZ), of a bill introduced in the 107th?
Congress to close the gun
show loophole. IPGV and other gun
violence prevention groups did not actively support the bill, favoring
instead
a stronger bill sponsored by Senator Jack Reed (D-RI).
Senator Lieberman received an “F” rating
from Gun Owners of America in 2003, and an “F” rating from the NRA in
2000. He received a 90% rating from the
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in 2002.
For
more information on Joseph Lieberman’s position on guns,
visit: http://www.candidatesonguns.org/content/meet/cand_lieberman.html
or www.vote-smart.org
Former Gov. Howard Dean:
Former Vermont
Governor Howard Dean has described
himself as being “more conservative than most Democrats” on the issue
of gun
control. He has stated that he does not
believe in gun control, and that the issue shouldn’t be “on the table."
Dean
believes that gun control cost the Democrats
the 2000 Presidential Election, particularly with regard to Montana,
Colorado,
and West Virginia. He has said: “If Al
Gore had my position on guns… he’d be in the White House.”
As Governor of
Vermont, Dean was endorsed by the
National Rifle Association and has acknowledged that they were “very
helpful”
in his state. As Governor, he signed
two bills into law – to protect gun ranges from commercial development
and to
shift responsibility for background checks from county sheriffs to the
federal
government. These actions earned him an
“A” from the NRA. In addition, he has
used the NRA line on numerous occasions, arguing that “One should just
enforce
the federal laws that we already have.”
In responding to
a survey conducted by the Coalition
to Stop Gun Violence, Howard Dean stated that he opposes legislation to
grant
the gun industry immunity from civil lawsuits and would veto such
legislation
as President. He has expressed his
support for a “tough and effective” assault weapons ban, instant
background
checks on all “retail and gun show sales,” and research into ballistic
fingerprinting of firearms. He has also
criticized enforcement of gun laws by the current Administration,
citing a
report finding that despite the fact that 150,000 criminals lied on
their
background check forms, there have been only 578 prosecutions.
On Feb. 9, 2003,
at Grinnell College in Grinnell,
IA, Dean was asked if he supported reauthorization of the assault
weapons
ban. He responded with a version of his
usual statement: “I support the reauthorization of the assault weapons
ban, and
closing the gun show loophole. But when
it comes to guns, everything else should be left up to the states. When
you
mention gun control, people in Vermont think it means taking away their
rifles
and shotguns. In Los Angeles, people think it means getting assault
weapons off
the street. And they’re both right."
The Washington
D.C. based Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence has come out in strong opposition to Howard Dean,
criticizing his
“states rights” position on the gun issue. In
a press release issued June 24, the Brady
Campaign stated: “Americans who care about
responsible gun
policies should reject the former Vermont Governor.”
For
more information on Howard
Dean’s position on guns,
visit: http://www.candidatesonguns.org/content/meet/cand_dean.html
or www.vote-smart.org
Sen. Bob Graham:
Florida
Senator Bob Graham, a hunter, has
voted with gun control 90% of the time since taking office as a Senator
in 1986. He voted for both the Brady bill
and the
federal ban on assault weapons.
In
2000, Graham called for gun control
legislation, noting: “Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been
killed
by gunfire…we cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to
continue. The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that
we need
to enact sensible gun legislation now.
In
2003, he received an “F-” from the gun
rights organization Gun Owners of America. He
received a 90% rating from the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence
in 2002.
For
more information on Bob Graham's position on guns,
visit: http://www.candidatesonguns.org/content/meet/cand_graham.html
or www.vote-smart.org
|
8/11/03
|
Edwards, Kerry and
Braun on Gun Violence
Senator John Edwards:
North Carolina Senator John
Edwards has voted with gun
control 67% of the time since becoming a Senator in 1998.
He has taken 3 votes on gun control. Edwards opposed gun control in 1999, voting
to table an amendment that would ban the unlicensed sale of guns on the
Internet by requiring websites clearly designed to sell guns to be
federally
licensed firearms dealers. The
amendment was tabled with a vote of 50-43. Edwards
voted in favor of banning the importation of
large-capacity
magazines (1999) and closing the gun show loophole (1999).
John Edwards has stated
that “it is very important
for Second Amendment rights to be
protected.”
He has also stated his support for
some gun
control measures, noting: “I
don’t…believe that somebody who's been convicted of a violent crime
ought to be
able to…walk out of prison, walk across the street and buy a gun. I think we ought to keep guns out of the
hands of criminals. I think we ought to
keep guns out of the hands of kids.
Senator Edwards is not rated by Gun
Owners of
America or the National Rifle
Association. He received a 77% rating
from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in 2002.
For more information on John
Edwards’ position
on guns, visit: http://www.candidatesonguns.org/content/meet/cand_edwards.html
or www.vote-smart.org
Senator John Kerry:
Massachusetts Senator
John Kerry has voted with gun control
100% of the time since becoming a US Senator in 1984.
He supported the Brady Bill and the
Assault Weapons
Ban. He is a gun owner and a hunter, and
is
particularly fond of hunting (and eating) dove, quail, duck and deer. He has a permit to carry a concealed
weapon. He has also co-sponsored gun
control legislation in Congress.
Kerry has made strong
statements in support of gun control,
including the following as stated on the Senate floor in 1994: “No wonder people in this country are fed up
with Washington. They are fed up because they understand what they want
done.
And instead, we get things being labeled, and gamy little political
phrases
thrown around. And, in the end, what happens? Another
kid picks up a gun and shoots somebody, and
America goes on
about its business.”
On the assault weapons
ban, John Kerry has said, “I never
contemplated hunting deer or anything else with an AK-47.”
He has also made strong
statements regarding the danger of
handguns in particular, saying that they are “too accessible” and “pose
an
ever-increasing danger to the safety and welfare of the American
public.” Addressing the NRA mantra: “Guns
don’t kill
people. People kill people,” Kerry has
stated “If it’s true that ‘people kill people,’ it’s also true that
they most
frequently do so with handguns…”
Kerry has criticized the NRA
for their negative influence on
passing needed legislation, saying in 1994: “I think everybody knows
how much
money has been spent by the National Rifle Association and by the gun
lobby…to
prevent Americans from getting a crime bill.”
In 2002, Kerry stated his
support for arming pilots “with
proper training and proper protocols for their [the guns’] use…if a
pilot comes
to a conclusion that this is the only way to remedy a dangerous
situation.”
Most recently, on July 19,
2003 at the National Motorcycle
Museum in Anamosa, IA, Kerry was asked if he supported the Lautenberg
bill
introduced in the Senate to reauthorize and strengthen the federal
assault
weapons ban.
Kerry provided a fairly long
response that included the
following. “I haven't read the Lautenberg bill so I can’t say whether
or not I
support it. But let me say that in
general that I support a ban on assault weapons. These
are weapons of war. We have no business
selling weapons of war on the
streets of
America. If you want to shoot an AK-47
or M-16, then I have a good solution for you. Enlist
in the armed forces, raise your right
arm (Kerry raised his
right arm as he spoke), and take the oath.”
He went on to say that he was
also for closing the gun show
loophole. “It doesn't make any sense
that we allow someone who could be a terrorist to go to a gun show and
buy guns
without a background check, when this person would not be able to
purchase guns
from a gun store.” He also stated that
he was a hunter, that he had a permit to carry a weapon, and that
he
believed in the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Senator Kerry has consistently
received an “F” from both Gun
Owners of America and the National Rifle Association.
He has consistently received a 100%
rating from both
the Brady
Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
For more information on John
Kerry’s position
on guns, visit: http://www.candidatesonguns.org/content/meet/cand_kerry.html
or www.vote-smart.org
Former Amb. Carol Moseley Braun:
Former
Ambassador (Samoa, New Zealand) Carol Moseley Braun was an Illinois
Senator
from 1992 to 1998, casting 6 votes on gun issues. She
voted for gun violence prevention 83% of the time.
She supported the assault weapons ban
and
the Brady bill, and has also co-sponsored gun control legislation in
the
Senate.
She
has made strong statements in support of gun control.
On the Senate Floor in 1993, she stated:
“Guns are tearing apart our
society, and
I know that the American people are outraged by gun laws that make it
so easy
for juveniles to obtain guns.” Again in
1993, she stated: “The time has come…to take a stand. We can no longer
ignore
the rising toll that handgun violence takes on this country. The
problem of
handgun violence is a national epidemic. It
needs a national solution.”
She has also
stated her support for gun rights, noting that her father was a hunter,
and
saying: “I would never favor gun control measures which would take guns
away
from hunters. I feel very strongly
about protecting the second amendment.”
She believes
that gun control measures have not endangered the Second Amendment,
noting in
1993: “there is no inconsistency between the second amendment and our
efforts…to restrict the flow of illicit guns, to restrict the
availability of
weapons into hands that should not have them, and to respond to the
carnage,
tragedy, and shame that illicit gun sales have wreaked on our Nation.”
For more information on Carol
Moseley Braun’s
position on guns, visit: http://www.candidatesonguns.org/content/meet/cand_braun.html
or www.vote-smart.org
|
8/18/03
|
Gephardt, Sharpton
and
Kucinich on
Gun Violence
Rep. Dick Gephardt:
Missouri Representative Dick
Gephardt has voted with gun control 100% of the time since becoming a
Representative in 1976. As House Majority Leader,
he helped to guide the 1993 Brady bill and the 1994 Assault Weapons
Ban, through Congress. Most recently, he voted
against a bill that would grant gun manufacturers, distributors and
dealers immunity from civil lawsuits.
Gephardt says he has worked
against efforts to “restrict victims of gun violence from seeking
justice in our civil courts” and would continue these efforts as
President. He supports reauthorization and
strengthening of the federal assault weapons ban, noting in a Coalition
to Stop Gun Violence survey: “Since the 1994 [assault weapons] ban was
passed, we have seen a growing number of copycat weapons used in
criminal activity – the most notorious being the Bushmaster assault
weapon used in the 2002 sniper shootings in the Washington, D.C. area.
I would support a reasonable expansion
of the
assault weapons ban to include copycat and slightly altered weapons.”
He has also expressed his
support of expanding background check requirements to gun shows and
implementing a ballistic fingerprinting system for new handguns.
He notes that he is “deeply disturbed”
by Attorney
General John Ashcroft’s failure to protect Americans from gun violence,
and that one of his first actions as President would be to replace
Ashcroft with an Attorney General who takes a “fair and balanced
approach to the Second Amendment.”
At a recent Democratic Party
chairmen’s meeting in St. Paul, Gephardt was heard to say: “I support
the right of any law-abiding citizen to own and use firearms for legal
purposes. It’s important for all of us to say that in our country.”
He has noted that the National
Rifle Association “fanned the flames of fear with law abiding gun
owners” in attempting to block the Brady bill and the Assault Weapons
Ban from passage.
He disagrees with the States’
rights position on gun violence, saying: “while the state’s laws may
end at the state’s border, a criminal’s intention to perpetrate gun
violence will not.”
On his campaign website,
Gephardt says: “We've got to do what's right, what's sensible, and
what's reasonable. We've got to help parents raise their children
without this violence.”
On Aug. 15 at Duke’s
Steakhouse in Washington, IA, Gephardt
was asked by IPGV if he supported the McCarthy-Conyers bill in the
House to
reauthorize and strengthen the assault weapons ban, and if so, would he
consider becoming a co-sponsor on the bill when he gets back to
Washington, DC.
Gephardt responded:
“I support a
continuation of the ban. But with a Republican
Congress and Tom Delay, it doesn’t have a chance. I’m happy to support
anything, but it’s a futile effort until we win back the Congress.”
Representative Gephardt
received an “F-“ in 2003 from Gun Owners of America and an “F” in 2002
from the National Rifle Association. He received a
94% rating from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in 2002.
For more information on Dick
Gephardt’s position on guns, visit http://www.candidatesonguns.org/content/meet/cand_gephardt.html
or www.vote-smart.org
Rev. Al Sharpton:
Reverend Al Sharpton is an
outspoken supporter of gun violence prevention. In
responding to a Coalition to Stop Gun Violence survey, Rev. Sharpton
expressed his support for renewal and strengthening of the federal
assault weapons ban, universal background checks, and ballistic
fingerprinting. He also expressed his opposition to
the gun industry immunity legislation currently before Congress, which
would immunize gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers from civil
lawsuits.
During the first Presidential
Candidate forum in North Carolina, moderator George Stephanopoulos
asked the nine Presidential candidates if they would support licensing
and registration in the 2004 campaign, as Al Gore did in the 2000
campaign. Al Sharpton was the only Presidential
candidate, of all nine present, to voice support for licensing and
registration.
He said: “I support [licensing
and registration]. I think that we must do whatever
we can to regulate how guns are used. I’ve been a
victim of a stabbing. Violence is something very
serious in this country. I think that we must take
it seriously.”
On August 6, 2003, at a “Hear
it from the Heartland” forum sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin, the Rev. Al
Sharpton was asked if he supports legislation to reauthorize and
strengthen the federal ban on assault weapons. He
responded:
“Yes. … I remember
as a kid, watching the assassination of
Dr. King and Robert Kennedy, [which] traumatized me. Have
we forgotten that pain? Have we not seen what our
inner cities look like, because kids that can’t work a computer know
how to use an automatic weapon? And are defining
their reach of puberty by whether or not they have a gun under their
pillow? This is a dangerous cultural time, and
we’ve got to not only support that legislation, we have to strengthen
it. And I’m the candidate that’s raised that openly
and advocates that.”
Sharpton
went on to discuss handguns and to criticize the seeming lack of
support for gun control amongst the democratic candidates in the South
Carolina debate in May:
“I am surprised, because you
hear of all these liberals in the race, and I’ve never heard of
liberals that the NRA likes. I mean, it’s just
strange to me that… an NRA sponsored liberal is an oxymoron to me.
But aside from the politics of it … I
think that the
reality is that what handguns have done in this country is such an
outrage. When I was in Africa two weeks ago, and
I’m sitting at the table, and I’m appealing to the warring factions
that you’ve got to stop the carnage…then someone passed me a note that
a friend of mine, a city councilman in New York, had been killed, in
City Hall, by a handgun. I mean, these types of
beastly acts must stop. [And] one of the ways to
stop it is that we must take the weapons off the street. We
must not act like we have the right to conduct civilization in such a
barbaric way.”
For more information on Al
Sharpton’s position on guns, visit http://www.candidatesonguns.org/content/meet/cand_sharpton.html
or www.vote-smart.org
Rep. Dennis Kucinich:
Ohio Representative Dennis
Kucinich has voted with gun control 100% of the time since becoming a
representative in 1996. He voted against a bill
that would grant gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers immunity
from civil lawsuits. He is a co-sponsor in the
House of the “Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of
2003,” which would renew and strengthen the federal assault weapons ban.
In response to a survey by the
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Kucinich stated his support for the
federal assault weapons ban: “One phone call from the President or one
press conference would allow the assault weapons ban to again be law.
In a time of legitimate concern for
homeland
security, where is the true concern for the safety of our citizens?”
He also supports universal
background checks, saying that “keeping guns out of the wrong hands is
a national priority.”
Kucinich criticizes Attorney
General John Ashcroft for his approach to guns and gun laws, saying:
“If the people through their representatives wish sensible gun laws to
be passed, they should be uniformly enforced by the Attorney General.
The Attorney General should not be
allowed to
develop a subset of laws: those he likes and will actually enforce.”
Rep. Kucinich has also
introduced legislation in the US House that would create a cabinet
level Department of Peace. One of the Department’s
domestic responsibilities would be to “analyze existing policies,
employ successful, field-tested programs, and develop new approaches
for dealing with the implements of violence, including gun-related
violence and the overwhelming presence of handguns.”
He has said that while he
comes from a city, Cleveland, he’s “sensitive to guns” and believes
“it’s possible to have gun laws that in no way interfere with hunters.”
He has also said that he is from the
“gun control
wing of the democratic party.”
At Muddy Waters restaurant in
downtown Cedar Rapids, IA, Kucinich was asked if he supported
legislation to reauthorize and strengthen the federal assault weapons
ban. He replied: “Absolutely. No
hunter needs an assault rifle to go hunting. At
least no fair minded hunter.”
Rep. Kucinich received an “F-”
in 2003 from Gun Owners of America and an “F” in 2002 from the NRA.
He received a 100% rating from the Brady
Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence in 2002.
For more information on
Dennis Kucinich’s position on guns, visit http://www.candidatesonguns.org/content/meet/cand_kucinich.html
or www.vote-smart.org
|
8/25/03
|
Defend
D.C.'s Right to
Regulate Handguns!
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has
introduced a bill (S.1414)
that would repeal Washington, D.C.’s 1976 handgun ban, repeal the
District’s
ban on semi-automatic firearms, end
the District’s requirement for registration of some firearms, and
remove
limitations on the carrying or possession of a concealed weapon at home
or in
the workplace, the Washington Post reported July 17.
Strikingly, the bill would
also deny District residents the
right to make their own gun laws. The
bill states: “The District of Columbia shall not have authority to
enact laws
or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or
use of
firearms.”
Iowa Senator Charles Grassley
(R) is a co-sponsor of this
outrageous bill.
High ranking D.C. government
officials are not pleased with
the proposed legislation. Mayor Anthony
A. Williams, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, and council Chairwoman Linda
W. Cropp
have all expressed their opposition to the bill. Norton
noted: “The only thing that would cause more murder and
mayhem in this city is allowing freer access to guns.”
She said that the reason the
gun ban in D.C. was the target
of this effort again, as it was in 1999, is because the District does
not have
“senators and the full panoply of legal rights to protect [itself].”
Sen. Hatch criticized
the
District’s ban as being “as
ineffective and deplorable as it is unconstitutional” because of the
District’s
high rate of gun crime.
A study published in 1991 to
evaluate the effects of the ban
found that “restrictive licensing of handguns was associated with a
prompt
decline in homicides and suicides by firearms in the District of
Columbia…data
suggest that restrictions on access to guns in the District of Columbia
prevented an average of 47 deaths each year after the law was
implemented."
In
the years following the
study, gun crime rose nationally
as well as in the District. However,
most of the guns used in crime in D.C. make their way into the District
from
surrounding states. Nearly sixty percent
of crime guns originated in either Maryland or Virginia.
Tell your Senators:
·
making
handguns more available in our Nation’s Capital will not protect
residents and
visitors, but will imperil them;
·
Senators
from states such as Iowa and Utah should not eliminate the right of
Washington
D.C. residents to enact gun policies that address local issues;
·
what
is
needed to protect the residents of Washington D.C. from gun violence is
the
strengthening of gun laws in surrounding states, not the weakening of
laws in
the District.
TAKE
ACTION:
CLICK HERE
TO SEND
AN EMAIL OR A LETTER through the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Website.
Contact your Senators and
Representatives: www.ipgv.org/actioncenter.html.
Sign
an
on-line petition to oppose the bill and
support the right of D.C. residents to make their own gun laws! http://www.petitiononline.com/s1414/petition.html |
| 9/1/03 |
Labor
Day Holiday
|
| 9/8/03 |
NRA Attacks
Enforcement of Existing Gun Laws
In
direct contradiction to its
characteristic call for “no new gun laws” and “enforcing the laws
already on
the books,” the NRA is attacking enforcement of America’s gun laws by
seeking
to limit the power of the agency charged with enforcing those laws –
the
federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
A dangerous amendment, drafted
by the NRA and sponsored
by
Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), was attached to
the Fiscal Year 2004 appropriations bill for the Commerce, Justice and
State
departments.
The amendment’s eight points
seek to limit ATF powers such
as denial and revocation of federal firearms licenses and requiring
dealers to
maintain an accurate inventory of firearms. The
amendment also seeks to limit information sharing,
giving licensed
gun dealers the option to not volunteer data in ATF gun trace
investigations,
and prohibiting the release of currently available gun crime data to
Congress
and the general public.
The
US Congressional appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and
State
passed the amendment by a vote of 31-30, and the full House approved
the
appropriations bill on July 23. The
appropriations bill is expected to be considered by the Senate this
month. Efforts are underway to strip the
NRA
amendment from the Senate version of the appropriations bill.
|
| 9/15/03 |
Man Uses Gun
Bought Through Newspaper Ad to Kill Estranged Wife
In November of 2001, Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence (IPGV)
and a
coalition of about 25 gun violence prevention groups concerned with the
sale of
firearms without a background check on the buyer launched the National Campaign to Close the
Newspaper Loophole.
The Campaign
asks newspapers that take classified ads for firearms to voluntarily
stop
taking gun ads from unlicensed sellers as an exercise of civic
responsibility. Unlicensed sellers are
not required to conduct background checks on their buyers.
Since the
Campaign was initiated, 12 newspapers have changed their classified
advertising
policy for firearms. They are: the
Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Enquirer, Miami Herald, Sandusky (Ohio)
Register,
Willoughby (Ohio) News Herald, Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News,
Detroit Free
Press, Detroit News, Dubuque (Iowa) Telegraph-Herald, Houston Chronicle
and the
Dallas Morning News.
Does the
newspaper loophole pose any real threat to Americans?
Consider this incident from Bradenton,
Florida.
Mark Williams
was involved in a contentious divorce and child custody dispute. A
custody
hearing was scheduled for April 28, 2003 and a divorce hearing on May
2. But
neither hearing would be held.
On the
morning of April 27, one day before the scheduled custody hearing,
Williams
bought a CZ-52 – 7.62x25mm Tokarev semiautomatic handgun in a private
transaction through a classified ad in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.
Later on
the same day, Williams shot and killed his estranged wife, Raquel
Soliz-Williams, in front of her nine-year-old daughter from a previous
relationship.
Williams
was
a convicted felon and domestic abuser. In 1987 he served 6 months in
prison of
an 18-month sentence for aggravated battery (for stalking another
woman). In
1994 he was convicted of engaging in organized crime in Texas and was
sentenced
to 5 years probation. The previous December, a judge issued a
restraining order
against Williams requested by his estranged wife. Five weeks later, she
asked
the judge to vacate the order to make the situation less contentious.
At the
time of the shooting, Williams was also subject to a court restraining
order
secured by his first wife, Estella Martinez, who now lives in Illinois.
As a
convicted felon and a person subject to a court restraining order for
domestic
violence, Williams was a prohibited firearms purchaser. As such, he
could not
buy a gun from a licensed firearms dealer because he could not pass a
criminal
background check mandated by the Brady Law on all gun store sales. However, a loophole in the federal law
allows unlicensed individuals to sell firearms from their “personal
collection”
without conducting a criminal background check on the buyer. Williams
evidently
knew that he could avoid undergoing a criminal background check by
buying from
an unlicensed seller in a private transaction – in this case by
exploiting the
“newspaper loophole.”
Williams has
been charged with first-degree capital murder and is being held in the
Manatee
County Jail without bond. He goes on trial October 27.
Does the
newspaper loophole put women in abusive situations at risk? Yes, it
does. Just
ask the family of Raquel Soliz-Williams.
Does your newspaper take
classified ads for guns from unlicensed sellers?
Takes
No Gun Ads:
Clinton
Herald, Daily Iowan, Dubuque Telegraph-Herald
Takes
Ads for Rifles and Shotguns Only:
Daily Tribune,
Council Bluffs Daily Nonpareil, Iowa City Press Citizen
Takes
all gun ads:
Atlantic
News-Telegraph, Burlington Hawkeye, Carrol Times Herald, Cedar Rapids
Gazette,
Creston News Advertiser, Des Moines Register, Fort Dodge Messenger,
Fort
Madison Daily Democrat, Marshalltown Times-Republican, Mason City Globe
Gazette, Muscatine Journal, Ottumwa Courier, Quad City Times, Sioux
City
Journal, Waterloo Courier
Contact
your newspaper and
request that they stop taking classified ads for guns from unlicensed
sellers
because there are no background checks conducted. It’s
a matter of public safety. Visit the
Campaign to Close the Newspaper Loophole
website to find out What
You Can Do.
|
| 9/22/03 |
Sarasota Herald
Tribune Will Not Accept Classified Ads for Guns
Last week,
IPGV
reported that a Bradenton, Florida man, Mark Williams, had
purchased a semiautomatic handgun through a classified ad placed in the
Sarasota
Herald Tribune by an unlicensed seller. Williams
then fatally shot his estranged wife,
Raquel Soliz-Williams, in
front of her nine year old daughter.
Williams, a
convicted
felon under a restraining order for domestic violence,
was a prohibited firearms purchaser and could not have passed a
criminal
background check. He was able to obtain
the gun because he bought it from an unlicensed seller.
Unlicensed sellers do not have to
conduct
background checks on their buyers.
Following
this
incident, the Campaign to Close the Newspaper Loophole, lead
by Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence (IPGV), wrote a letter to
the
publisher of the Sarasota Herald Tribune, requesting that they
adopt a
policy of not accepting classified ads for guns from unlicensed sellers.
We are
happy to report
that this morning, the publisher of the Sarasota
Herald Tribune informed us that the newspaper will no longer take
classified ads for guns.
We applaud
this action
by the newspaper. However, our enthusiasm
is tempered by the fact that
a young woman and
mother of three children 9 years and under had to die to get the
newspaper to
change its dangerous policy. We ask
that newspapers that currently take classified ads for firearms from
unlicensed
sellers discontinue the practice before another person is killed.
The
Campaign to Close
the Newspaper Loophole began in November of 2001 and
can be found online at www.gunloophole.com.
Since the
Campaign was
initiated, 13 newspapers have changed their
classified advertising policy for firearms. They
are: the Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia
Enquirer, Miami Herald,
Sandusky (Ohio) Register, Willoughby (Ohio) News Herald, Denver Post,
Rocky
Mountain News, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, Dubuque (Iowa)
Telegraph-Herald, Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News and the
Sarasota
Herald Tribune.
|
| 9/29/03 |
Good News
& Bad News
Good
News:
A
bipartisan agreement
has been reached in the US House that virtually
guarantees passage of a bill to improve record keeping for background
check
information. The bill would send a
total of $375 million a year for three years to state agencies and
courts to
upgrade the databases used to determine whether or not a person is a
prohibited
firearms purchaser.
The bill is
supported
by NRA board member and Representative Larry Craig
(R-Idaho), who said the measure intends to create an “effective,
accurate,
speedy background check.”
Bad News:
We are
unhappy to
report that Tom Daschle, South Dakota Senator and
Democratic Senate Minority Leader, has signed on as a co-sponsor of S.
659, a
bill designed to make gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers
immune from
legal liability.
Daschle
(D-S.D.) says
his support is conditional the inclusion of his
amendment to allow people to sue because of defective products or straw
purchases (firearm purchases made by individuals for prohibited
purchasers).
This is an
outrage. Senator Daschle
has signed on to take away the legal rights of victims of gun violence. Tell him this is unacceptable.
Call Senator Daschle:
202-224-2321
Please
forward this message to friends and
family in South Dakota so that Senator Daschle
hears from as many constituents
as possible. |
| 10/6/03 |
Task Force Says: "Insufficient Evidence -
More Research is Needed"
A recent report issued by the Task
Force on
Community Preventive
Services,
in association with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), found
that there is “insufficient evidence” to determine whether or not
existing gun
laws reduce gun violence, and that “additional research is needed
before an
intervention can be evaluated for its effectiveness.”
The Task force reviewed 51 studies,
selected
because they specifically
evaluated the effects of selected firearms laws on violent outcomes. The firearm laws selected for study by the
Task force include bans on firearms or ammunition, restrictions on
firearm
acquisition, and “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws.
The Task Force issued the following
conclusion: “International comparisons
indicate that the
US is an outlier
among developed, industrialized nations in rates of firearms violence. Widespread public concern exists about
[firearms
violence]…and popular support for many firearms laws is
evident…research should
continue on the effectiveness of firearms laws as one approach to the
prevention or reduction of firearms violence and firearms injury.”
Although the
CDC-supported Task force called for
new, high quality research in releasing the report, the CDC has no
plans to
fund this type of research.
Due to efforts by the gun lobby, the CDC is prohibited from using funds
to
promote gun control. |
| 10/13/03 |
Join
the Million Faces
The
International
Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), Amnesty
International, and Oxfam have joined forces to initiate a campaign
called
Control Arms, which seeks to “reduce arms proliferation and misuse and
to
convince governments to introduce a binding arms trade treaty.”
In a report
released on
October 9, the Control Arms campaign noted that one
person is killed each minute worldwide as a result of small arms, and
many more
are injured. The campaign argues that
current arms trade laws are riddled with loopholes, and that an
international
Arms Trade Treaty must be created to combat the scourge of small arms,
which
fuel human rights abuses, poverty, and conflict worldwide.
In
addition, the report
found that the “war on terror” has fuelled weapons
proliferation, particularly the transfer of weapons from the United
States and
the United Kingdom to post September 11th allies such as
Pakistan,
Indonesia and the Phillipines.
“Governments,
preoccupied with a search for nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons in their fight against ‘terrorism’, have essentially ignored
the real
‘weapons of mass destruction’ - small arms. So they continue to
proliferate, at
the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives,” said Rebecca Peters,
Director of
the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA).
The Control
Arms
campaign is located on-line at www.controlarms.com. Take a moment to add your face to the
million faces petition, and “demonstrate
to governments that we need effective and urgent action to control the
arms
trade crisis."
The Control
Arms
campaign plans to take one million faces to a United
Nations small arms conference scheduled for the summer of 2006 to
“demand that
governments face up to their responsibility and stop the human misery
caused by
irresponsible arms sales.”
|
| 10/20/03 |
n/a
|
| 10/27/03 |
IPGV Series: Disarming Iowa's Domestic Abusers
October is Domestic Violence
Awareness month, and
IPGV will take this
opportunity to examine the deadly relationship between guns and
domestic
violence.
A new report by the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun
Violence, Disarming
Domestic Violence Abusers, highlights actions that can be taken by
gun
violence prevention advocates to reduce the lethality of domestic
violence.
Although we do have federal laws that
prohibit
possession or purchase of
weapons by individuals with felony or misdemeanor convictions for
domestic
violence, as well as those under restraining orders for domestic
violence,
these laws are not adequately enforced.
State laws are needed to make these
policies
enforceable by local
authorities, to improve the submission of domestic violence records to
the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and to enhance
policies to
prevent abusers from gaining or maintaining possession of firearms.
The report recommends six focus areas
for action
in the states:
1. States
must
assure that
restraining orders clearly prohibit gun possession and are quickly
added to
state and national databases used to conduct background checks on
potential gun
buyers.
2. Abusers
who are
found guilty of
domestic violence misdemeanors must be prohibited from possessing
firearms and
be added to state and national background check databases.
3. Police
must
remove firearms from
the scenes of domestic violence, to reduce the immediate risk to the
victim(s)
of violence and to allow time for a protective order to be issued if
desired.
4. Judges
and state
authorities must
be granted authority, and then use that authority, to identify and
disarm
abusers who possess firearms.
5. Background
checks
must be
required for all gun sales, conducted by both licensed firearms dealers
and
unlicensed individuals, to ensure that domestic abusers prohibited from
purchasing firearms to not acquire them through “secondary sales” –
sales
conducted by unlicensed individuals where a background check is not
conducted
on the potential buyer.
6. Funding
and
resources must be
provided to ensure strong enforcement of policies prohibiting firearms
purchase
or possession by domestic abusers.
In the next two weeks, we will
examine these
recommendations and determine
what can and should be done in Iowa to reduce the lethality of domestic
violence.
Announcement:
Participate in the Iowa
Issues Caucuses!
Are you sick
of
talking about the
candidates?
Do you want to learn more about the issues without the
political spin?
Do you want to tell the candidates how you really feel?
Do you need resources to feel more empowered?
If so,
join us for the first ever Iowa Issues Caucus!!
Sunday,
October 26,
2003 through Saturday November 7, 2003
Sites in Iowa
City, Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Cedar Falls, Sioux City, West Branch,
Winterset, etc.
For more
information about the
Issues Caucuses, how you can get involved, when, and where,
Check
out the Iowa PSR
web-site: www.iowa-psr.org
Please plan to
join us at an
Issues Caucus site near you at a time and place convenient for you!
Sponsored
by:
Iowa Chapter,
Physicians
for Social
Responsibility
United Nations
Association, Iowa
and
Endorsed by:
|
| 11/3/03 |
Join
the Blacklist
We are
postponing the
next part of our series, Disarming Iowa’s Domestic
Abusers, for a special action alert.
What do Walter
Cronkite, The
American Public Health Association and Catherine Zeta-Jones have in
common?
They’ve all
been
blacklisted.
By the NRA.
Want to
join the list? Visit www.nrablacklist.com
to see the NRA’s
19-page blacklist and add your name to it.
Join
prominent and
respected actors/actresses, journalists, national
organizations, and even corporations in being recognized as an enemy of
the
NRA.
Sign your
name to the
blacklist today to show our elected representatives
just how many enemies the NRA really has.
www.nrablacklist.com
|
| 11/10/03 |
IPGV Series: Disarming Iowa's
Domestic Abusers
Week
Two
The first
three focus
areas for action recommended by the report, Disarming
Domestic Violence Abusers, and the current status of these
recommendations
as included in Iowa statutes, are provided below. It
is unknown to what degree these laws are being implemented.
Recommendation
#1:
States must assure that restraining orders clearly
prohibit gun possession and are quickly added to state and national
databases
used to conduct background checks on potential gun buyers.
In Iowa,
abusers
under restraining orders can be prohibited from
possessing firearms. The court has
discretion. It is unknown how often a
court prohibits possession.
Iowa
does submit
restraining orders to federal databases. Iowa
is working on noting firearms
prohibition information on the first page of all protective orders
issued.
Recommendation
#2: Abusers
who are found guilty of domestic violence misdemeanors must be
prohibited from
possessing firearms and be added to state and national background check
databases.
In Iowa,
those found
guilty of domestic violence misdemeanors are
prohibited from firearm possession because of Iowa’s handgun permit to
purchase
system. However, permits are valid for
one year, potentially allowing for a person to have a valid permit and
to be a
domestic violence misdemeanant.
Records
of those
convicted of domestic violence are entered into national
databases that are used to conduct background checks.
However,
Iowa is one
of thirty-one states that have not participated in
the FBI’s Identification for Firearms Sales (IFFS) system, which “flags
state
domestic violence misdemeanors with NICS (the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System) to ensure that abusers are identified and
blocked from
buying guns.”
Recommendation
#3: Police
must remove firearms from the scenes of domestic violence, to reduce
the
immediate risk to the victim(s) of violence and to allow time for a
protective
order to be issued if desired.
In Iowa,
police are
not authorized to remove firearms from scenes of
domestic violence. Iowa is one of
forty-four states that have failed to enact laws to “empower either law
enforcement or the courts to identify and disarm prohibited abusers who
already
have firearms.” Thirty-six states have
failed to enact state laws to “temporarily remove firearms from scenes
of
domestic violence.”
|
| 11/17/03 |
IPGV: Military-Style,
Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Remain a Threat to All Americans,
Especially Law Enforcement Officers
Citing a recent study that
shows that one in five law enforcement officers killed in the line of
duty is killed by an assault weapon, IPGV called on Congress to pass
the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003"
Des
Moines and Davenport, IA – Military-style,
semiautomatic assault weapons constitute an unreasonable risk of death
and
injury to all Americans, and in particular, to law enforcement officers
who must
deal with criminals armed with assault weapons, according to Iowans for
the
Prevention of Gun Violence (IPGV). With an AK-47 assault rifle and a
TEC-DC9
9mm assault pistol in the background, IPGV called on Congress to renew
and
strengthen the federal assault weapons ban at a press conference at the
State
Capitol Building in Des Moines.
The
current assault weapons ban prohibits the manufacturer and sale of 19
assault
weapons by name – AK-47s, AR-15s, and UZIs – and other weapons based on
their
physical characteristics. But, the law was passed with a ten year
sunset
provision, and will expire on September 14, 2004, ten years after it
was signed
into law by President Clinton, unless renewed by this Congress.
“Unfortunately,
current law has failed to meet the intent of Congress when it passed
the ban in
1994,” said Kirsten Meredith, communications director of IPGV. “Gun
manufacturers have cynically evaded the law by making cosmetic changes
to their
weapons, renaming them, and marketing them as post-ban products.” To
support
her claim, Meredith held up a 2003 Gun Buyers Guide that lists over 125
different makes and models of post-ban assault weapons currently
offered for
sale on civilian markets.
IPGV
also released a list of pre-ban and post-ban assault weapons observed
for sale
at a gun show held at Hawkeye Downs in Cedar Rapids over the November
7-9
weekend. Assault weapons for sale included AR-15 type .223-caliber
rifles,
Romanian and Chinese AK-47 type 7.62x39mm rifles, and 9mm and .45ACP
assault
pistols.
Said
Meredith, “The result is that people are being killed and injured by
guns that
most Americans thought were banned in 1994. And all too often, the
people being
killed are police officers.” A recent study by the Violence Policy
Center found
that one out of every five police officers killed in the line of duty
between
January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2001 was killed with an assault weapon.
IPGV
asked Iowa’s members of Congress to support the “Assault Weapons Ban
and Law
Enforcement Act” introduced in the House of Representatives by
Congresswoman
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and in the Senate by Senator Frank Lautenberg
(D-NJ).
This legislation not only makes the current assault weapons ban
permanent; it
also strengthens the law to meet the original intent of Congress when
it passed
the assault weapons ban in 1994.
“Congress
never meant for there to be two classes of assault weapons – assault
weapons
that are banned by law, and functionally equivalent assault weapons
that are
not banned,” said John Johnson, executive director of IPGV. “It’s time
for
Congress to stop “pussy footing” around and pass an assault weapons ban
that
the gun industry can’t evade. Only the McCarthy and Lautenberg assault
weapon
bills achieve this goal. Americans have said that they don’t want these
weapons; they don’t want the AK-47s, they don’t want the AR-15s, they
don’t
want the TEC-DC9s and UZIs, and they don’t want the ‘knock downs’ and
clones of
these weapons.”
Johnson
said that current members of Congress who oppose renewal of the assault
weapons
ban can run as the “assault weapons candidate” in the next election.
Bryan
Miller of Haddonfield, NJ, told how his brother,
an FBI agent, was killed in 1994 with a Colbry MAC-10 assault pistol.
His
brother’s death caused Miller to quit his job as vice president of an
international business company to become a full-time gun violence
prevention
activist. He is currently executive director of Ceasefire New Jersey
and
Ceasefire Pennsylvania.
|
| 11/24/03 |
Midwest Gun Violence
Prevention Groups Question Police Raffle of
AR15-Type Assault Rifle to Raise Money for Memorial to Slain Officers
Illinois
Council Against
Handgun Violence and Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence offer to
provide raffle organizers with hunting rifle or shotgun to use instead
Calling a
military-style, semiautomatic assault rifle, similar to the rifle used
in the
Washington, DC-area sniper shootings last year, a dubious choice for a
raffle
prize, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and Iowans for the
Prevention of Gun Violence offered to provide raffle organizers with a
true
“hunting rifle or shotgun of equal or greater value” to use for the
raffle
instead. The formal offer was made in a letter addressed to the Quad
Cities Law
Enforcement Memorial Committee during a Nov. 18 press conference at the
[Rock
Island Public Library].
“It’s
difficult to understand why raffle organizers would choose an assault
rifle to
raise money for a memorial to slain police officers, given that
assault-type
weapons are involved in a disproportionate number of law enforcement
officer
killings,” said Thom Mannard, executive director of the Illinois
Council
Against Handgun Violence. A recent report by the Violence Policy Center
revealed
that between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2001, one out of five law
enforcement officers killed in the line of duty was killed with an
assault
weapon (Officer Down – Assault Weapons and the War on Law Enforcement,
May 2003). Of the 41 law enforcement officers killed by an assault
weapon
documented in the report, 12 were killed by a .223-caliber assault
rifle
similar to the rifle being raffled off for the police memorial.
The
Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and Iowans for the Prevention
of Gun
Violence decided to offer raffle organizers a hunting rifle or shotgun
“because
we don’t want to see any more names go up on the memorial,” said
Mannard.
Bryan
Miller said he was astonished when he first heard about the raffle
prize.
Miller’s brother, an FBI special agent was gunned down in 1994 when a
man armed
with an assault weapon opened fire in a room occupied by three FBI
agents and a
Washington, DC police officer. Two of the FBI agents, including
Miller’s
brother, and the DC police officer were killed, and the third FBI agent
was
wounded in the attack.
“It
is inappropriate to use a weapon designed to kill people, quickly and
in
volume, a weapon that is involved in a disproportionate number of law
enforcement deaths, to raise funds for a memorial to fallen officers, “
said
Miller.
“The
issue here is much larger than the raffle of a single assault rifle,”
said John
Johnson, executive director of Iowans for the Prevention of Gun
Violence. “The
CAR UTE Elite .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle has been designed
specifically
to evade the federal assault weapons ban enacted by Congress in 1994.
Unfortunately, the 1994 law contained loopholes in design, and
unscrupulous gun
manufacturers like Rock River Arms found them immediately. Although it
goes by
a different name, the CAR UTE Elite is functionally identical to the
Colt AR15,
which is one of 19 assault weapons banned by name in the assault
weapons ban.”
Johnson noted that the raffle tickets even describe the rifle as an
AR15. The
AR15 is the civilian version of the M-16 used by U.S. armed forces.
The
current assault weapons ban will expire on Sept. 14, 2004 unless
renewed by
Congress. According to Johnson and Mannard, the CAR UTE Elite is a
perfect
example of why the assault weapons ban needs to be not only renewed,
but also
strengthened to meet the original intent of Congress. “Congress never
meant for
there to be two classes of assault weapons; one class that is banned,
and
another class that is functionally identical, but not banned,” said
Johnson.
“But that is the case under current law.”
The
Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and
Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence support legislation pending
in
Congress, the “Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act
of 2003”
introduced by Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy in the House of
Representatives
(H.R.2038) and Senator Frank Lautenberg in the Senate (S.1431). The
McCarthy
and Lautenberg bills are supported by more than 275 gun violence
prevention
groups and other organizations across the country. |
| 12/1/03 |
Democratic Presidential
Candidates Support Renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Sen. John Kerry signs on as co-sponsor of
legislation to renew and strengthen the ban
Cedar Rapids, IA - Senator and democratic
presidential candidate John Kerry (D-MA) has signed on as a co-sponsor
of a
Senate bill that would reauthorize and strengthen the federal assault
weapons
ban. The bill, S. 1431 or the “Assault
Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003,” was introduced
in the
Senate by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). A
companion bill, HR 2038, has been introduced in
the House by Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).
The
current federal assault weapons ban will expire in September of 2004
unless
renewed by Congress and signed into law by the President.
Unfortunately, the current law hasn’t
worked
as Congress intended when it passed the ban in 1994.
Said
John Johnson, executive director of IPGV: “Gun manufacturers have
evaded the
assault weapons ban by making minor modifications to existing assault
weapons,
renaming them, and marketing them as post-ban products.
Current law must be strengthened to take
these post-ban assault weapons off our streets. The
Lautenberg and McCarthy-Conyers bills will do just that.”
Sen. Kerry announced
his intention to sign on as a
co-sponsor of the bill in response to a question from IPGV during a
November
campaign event at Luther College in Decorah, IA. Kerry,
a gun owner and a hunter, has stated his support for
renewal of the assault weapons ban on several occasions.
During a July 19 campaign event in
Anamosa,
IA, Kerry said:
“I support a ban on
assault weapons. These are weapons of war. We have no business selling weapons of war
on the streets of America. If you want
to shoot an AK-47 or M-16, then I have a good solution for you. Enlist in the armed forces, raise your
right arm (Kerry raised his right arm as he spoke), and take the oath.”
Democratic presidential
candidates Dick Gephardt (D-MO) and
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) are co-sponsors of the House bill (HR 2038) to
renew and
strengthen the federal assault weapons ban.
Kirsten
Meredith, communications coordinator of IPGV,
added: “Military-style, semiautomatic assault weapons constitute an
unreasonable
risk of death and injury to all Americans, especially law enforcement
personnel. IPGV commends Senator Kerry
and Representatives Gephardt and Kucinich for their leadership in
taking these
weapons of war off America’s streets.”
|
| 12/8/03 |
Call Tom Harkin!
During our
last visit
to Senator Harkin’s office in Washington, D.C., we
asked that the Senator become a co-sponsor of S. 1431 – the “Assault
Weapons
Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act” – which would renew and
strengthen the
federal assault weapons ban.
Harkin’s
staff
responded that Harkin is supportive of the bill, but that he
hasn’t heard from many constituents and thus can’t commit to becoming a
co-sponsor of the bill.
Harkin
needs to hear from you.
Take
Action Today – It’s as easy as…
1 Pick up the Phone
2 Dial 202-224-3254
3 Say: “Hello. I
am a constituent and would like to request that Senator Harkin become a
co-sponsor of S. 1431, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement
Protection Act, which would renew and strengthen the federal
assault
weapons ban.”
We need you! – it only takes a
moment.
Show
Tom Harkin that Iowans support the assault weapons ban and are willing
to be
vocal about it!
202-224-3254
Please
pass this alert on to anyone you think will help us in our efforts. |
| 12/15/03 |
Come to Our Open House!
Friday,
December 19th from
1:00-5:00pm
Join
the IPGV staff in our office for cider and
snacks and take a break from the workday.
4403 1st Ave., SE
Executive Plaza Bldg. (across
from Lindale Mall)
Suite 113, 1st floor
Cedar
Rapids, IA |
| 12/22/03 |
Reject Anti-Law
Enforcement Legislation & Happy Holidays
Reject
Anti-Law Enforcement Legislation
The
US House has passed an appropriations bill including language that
would limit
ATF’s ability to solve gun crimes, AP reported December 9.
The bill would require ATF to destroy
background check records after 24 hours, preventing their use in
criminal
investigations. It would also block the ATF from requiring gun
dealers to take
regular inventories and prevent the release of crime gun traces and
multiple
gun sale data.
Click
Here
to take action via the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence to stop
this
anti-law enforcement legislation!
Happy
Holidays
First
Monday and Every Monday
will be on a one-week vacation. Our
next issue will be distributed the week of January 5, 2004.
We hope all
of you have a safe and happy
holiday, and a great New Year! |
| 12/29/03 |
Vacation
|
|
|
